Crafting efficient blockchain adoption strategies under risk and uncertain environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk and uncertainty are crucial factors in decision-making processes, especially when integrating emerging technologies into essential systems like supply chains. Failing to adequately consider significant risks can disrupt supply chain operations, leading to a loss of competitive edge and causing financial and reputational damage. On the other hand, the complex nature of new technology environments, differing viewpoints among stakeholders, and the challenges of interpreting data introduce a variety of uncertainties in decision-making. In this study, we conduct a thorough examination of how blockchain strategies can be applied within supply chain frameworks. Our analysis utilizes data-driven network decision-making models that are refined to effectively manage uncertainty and risk. These models take into account aspects such as supply chain dynamics and technological factors. Importantly, we meld risk considerations with our models to tackle efficiency shortfalls, while also accounting for uncertainty caused by ambiguous and stochastic data environments. By applying and assessing these models in a real-world case study of the oil and gas industry, our research uncovers insightful observations. Specifically, we find that adopting a localization strategy presents specific risks, while a single-use strategy yields significant efficiency improvements.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".