MANAGING BUYER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS: EMPIRICAL PATTERNS OF STRATEGY FORMULATION IN INDUSTRIAL PURCHASING
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate how industrial buyers align their relationships with suppliers to the contextual characteristics of the purchase. We propose that patterns of purchasing strategy are evidenced, in part, by the alignment of three fundamental domains: the firm's strategic intent for a given purchase, the environment in which a purchase is made, and the type of relationship adopted by industrial buying firms with their selected suppliers. Using a cluster analysis on data collected from 226 buyers in a sample of U.S. industrial firms, we identified four primary types of purchases. Our results provide a partial empirical validation of the purchasing types presented in purchasing portfolio models. However, we identify a fourth type, the adversarial purchase, which cannot be mapped to existing portfolio models. We also found evidence that the dimensions of portfolio models may not be as independent as commonly assumed. We discuss the implications of our findings for practitioners and for research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it