Developing a vendor risk assessment model to secure supply chains in U.S. and Canadian Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era of increasing global interconnectivity, securing supply chains has become a critical priority for organizations operating in the U.S. and Canadian markets. This study proposes a comprehensive vendor risk assessment model tailored to address vulnerabilities in supply chains while enhancing resilience and operational security. The model integrates qualitative and quantitative methodologies, leveraging data analytics, machine learning, and risk management frameworks to evaluate vendor reliability, financial stability, compliance with regulations, and cybersecurity preparedness. It incorporates a multi-dimensional approach, encompassing risk identification, assessment, mitigation strategies, and continuous monitoring to address dynamic market challenges. The research identifies key factors influencing vendor risk, including geopolitical instability, regulatory changes, and technological advancements, while emphasizing the importance of collaboration and information sharing between stakeholders. A comparative analysis of the U.S. and Canadian regulatory environments highlights similarities and differences that shape risk assessment practices, providing a basis for localized implementation strategies. The proposed model aims to mitigate risks such as supply chain disruptions, data breaches, and reputational damage by integrating predictive analytics and scenario planning. It emphasizes the role of advanced tools, such as blockchain for transparency, and artificial intelligence for early warning systems, to enable proactive decision-making. By fostering adaptability, the model supports businesses in navigating uncertainties while maintaining compliance with national and international standards. This study contributes to the discourse on supply chain security by offering a robust framework that enhances vendor selection and performance evaluation processes. The findings underscore the necessity of embedding risk assessment as a core element of supply chain management, ensuring sustainability and competitiveness in increasingly complex markets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".