MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415250364 · doi:10.1145/3757500

Relational Logistics and Alternative Supply Chains of Last Resort

2025· article· en· W4415250364 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Jack, Robert Soden

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Supply chainFlexibility (engineering)Humanitarian LogisticsSocial WelfareWork (physics)Supply sideWelfare

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper contrasts the consolidation of the American mega-logistics industry with homegrown logistics operations based in neighborhoods of New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. We offer three cases: a community of immigrant street vendors in Corona, Queens; a theater-turned-food-pantry in the Lower East Side of Manhattan; and the city-wide network of mutual aid organizations. We note the ways these alternative forms of logistics stitch together technologies, delivery processes, and social networks-often quite creatively-to get food and other resources where they need to be, when they needs to be there. These logistics networks are locally-oriented, fit to specific requirements, and made up of tailored, ad hoc activities. They demonstrate flexibility and skillful work in a crisis and bring together volunteers, entrepreneurs, and necessary resources with a community-at-need in horizontal governance. In doing so, they model forms of supply chains that improve social welfare and offer alternatives to the growing consolidation of mega logistics. We identify opportunites for CSCW scholars to use insights from the field including theories of infrastructure and technology and social movements to support the further development of such supply chains.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207