MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161011262 · doi:10.20894/ijwt.104.014.001.002

E-Tendering System using Blockchain

2025· article· W7161011262 on OpenAlexaff
Harsh Phartiyal, Nilay Sankhe, Omkar Shinde, Sanjay Singh, Rosy Pradhan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Web Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockchainBiddingInteroperabilityProcurementDistributed ledgerGovernment (linguistics)Smart contractCryptographyDigital signature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blockchain technology is set to revolutionize e-tendering by enhancing security, transparency, and cost-effectiveness. Traditional tendering methods, often reliant on paper-based processes or centralized digital systems, are prone to fraud, fake documentation, lack of transparency, and bureaucratic delays. Blockchain-based e-tendering addresses these challenges by eliminating intermediaries, reducing corruption, and fostering trust in the bidding process. By leveraging Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and smart contracts, block chain ensures that all transactions are immutably recorded, tamper-proof, and verifiable. This technology mitigates risks associated with data manipulation, unauthorized alterations, and biased decision-making. Automated procurement through smart contracts streamlines workflows, minimizes manual intervention, reduces operational costs, and expedites decision-making. This research explores the fundamentals, benefits, and challenges of blockchain applications in e- tendering, analysing various consensus mechanisms, cryptographic security models, and interoperability issues. By utilizing blockchain- powered e-tendering solutions, organizations can cut costs, minimize fraudulent risks, and ensure a transparent and fair bidding process. The study serves as a foundation for future research on innovative procurement models driven by blockchain and provides insights for government agencies, enterprises, and technology innovators seeking to modernize their procurement systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Web Technology→Same topicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security→French-language works237,207→