MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399680970 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2024.5.003

Selection of livestreaming mode: Impacts of blockchain technology

2024· article· en· W4399680970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guangdong Liu, Ziyang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainSelection (genetic algorithm)Mode (computer interface)Computer scienceBiochemical engineeringProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the production side, blockchain is being widely applied to agricultural product supply chains (APSCs), which can effectively improve circulation efficiency and reduce transportation losses. On the sales side, many companies are utilizing key opinion leaders (KOLs) to promote and sell agricultural products. The combination of the two enhances the farm-to-fork transparency of agricultural products and stimulates consumer purchases. Based on these, we construct four theoretical models to study blockchain investment and livestreaming mode strategies in the APSC. The results show that investing in blockchain always stimulates consumer purchases of agricultural products, while KOL livestreaming increases consumer purchases only when the increase-traffic power is greater than a certain threshold. There is a win-win situation where the fresh product supplier (FPS) and the e-retailer can benefit from investing in blockchain and introducing KOL livestreaming, respectively. Investing in blockchain is always beneficial for the KOL, and there is free-riding behavior in the APSC. Interestingly, the enhanced increase-traffic power within a certain interval may become a negative driving force, seriously harming the FPS. In addition, we find that investing in blockchain and introducing KOL livestreaming does not always benefit consumer surplus and social welfare, which depend on the KOL’s increase-traffic power, commission rate, and unit cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207