MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387021028 · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v18n5p220

Executive Decisions in Emergencies and Innovation in Supply Chain: A Suggested Model

2023· article· en· W4387021028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahmoud M. H. Alayis, Nermine Magdy Atteya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency managementEconomic shortageCrisis managementCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessSupply chainValue (mathematics)PandemicOperations managementSupply chain managementPublic relationsManagementPolitical scienceMarketingEconomicsComputer scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Covid-19 was very impactful on all USA States, with increased deaths and escalated trends every day, strong hit in various states on the top of them comes New York., New Jersey, and Michigan, during difficult times (April 20). That is why the authors have chosen the General Motors (G.M.) initiative to study and analyze. The crisis of medical supplies and ventilators shortage at the beginning of the pandemic deserved to be studied and synthesized as an inspiring experience and adds value to the discipline of social responsibility, crisis management, disaster management, strategic decision making and emergency management. The major objective of this study is designing a model that represents a Road Map for Emergency Management for CEOs and Executives. Content analysis was used to analyze the Covid-19 crisis and events' sequences in relation to Manitoba Health Disaster Management Model, and the fast decisions and actions made. This research will conclude with a top-level management implication: a designed road map that can be used for making future decisions in emergency management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and ManagementSame topicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207