Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring technologies, which are at the heart of the industrial Internet of Things ecosystem, promise significant transactional efficiencies by making it easier to track product performance and contract compliance. These efficiencies are particularly compelling in industrial multivendor, multicomponent systems, where complex component interdependencies often cause disputes around liability in the case of product failures. Drawing on transaction cost theory, fieldwork, and a national survey of industrial original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), we estimate how product performance contracts are specified in these contexts, and how these monitoring technologies can impact ex post exchanges between OEMs and their suppliers. We find that systems architecture associated with multicomponent systems, as well as the presumed efficiencies of monitoring technologies, drive the contract designs through their potential impact on the disputes, monitoring, and contract writing costs faced by the OEM. However, we also find there are clear limits to the benefits offered by these monitoring technologies, as the greater monitoring facilitated by these technologies appears to exacerbate disputes. This counterintuitive finding comports with the view that when unforeseen interdependent failures occur, detailed data from monitoring may trigger a spate of disputes over new and unexpected information, as well as over the appropriateness of existing protocols for failure metrics and remedies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".