A quantitative approach for evaluating the impact of increased supply chain visibility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication and collaboration between supply chain partners is more important than ever. To achieve this, visibility between different supply chain tiers is essential. Recent literature has discussed the benefits of increased supply chain visibility, but more research is necessary to provide concrete evidence. The main question this article aims to answer is about what parts of a supply chain are critical for establishing and increasing visibility. Toward this end, this study uses the amount of unmet customer demand as a performance measure, and performs simulations and empirical analysis on multi-tier supply chains of various sizes. Results indicate that the customers (i.e., downstream supply chain) are the most critical components, and the managers must focus on increasing visibility with them. In addition, visibility in the downstream can be nearly as effective as full visibility in specific settings: The maximum gap between the amounts of unmet demand for the two settings is about 7%. However, the main value of full visibility becomes more apparent when significant deviations exist between forecasted and actual customer demand amounts. As the experiments demonstrate, full visibility in the entire supply chain is the most effective level of visibility.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it