Effects of Revenue-Sharing Contracts and Overconfidence on Innovation for Key Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Revenue-sharing (RS) contracts are a common approach in incentivizing innovation of upstream suppliers by addressing the uneven profit distribution between upstream and downstream firms. Considering the possible overconfidence characterizing decision makers in the supply chain, we investigate the effect of the RS contract and the tendency of overconfidence of supply chain members on the investment in R&D of key components of products in the context of an upstream supplier that is a leader in the R&D and production of key components. We find that regardless of the bargaining power of either party, an RS contract can increase the R&D investment in key components. Regarding the effects of overconfidence of either the downstream manufacturer or upstream supplier, an RS contract can increase the R&D investment in key components. Supplier (manufacturer) overconfidence can harm their own profits but increase the profits of the manufacturer (supplier), and when the level of overconfidence is below a certain threshold, the damage to their own profits is less than the increase in each other’s profits, thus benefiting the whole supply chain. In addition, we also find a joint effect of RS contracts and overconfidence: when the bargaining power of the supplier is low, the RS contract has a certain compensatory effect on the loss of their own profits caused by overconfidence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".