MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010877972 · doi:10.1177/097226290100500204

Supply Chains in India: Can We Organise Them Better?

2001· article· en· W2010877972 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVision The Journal of Business Perspective · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicIndian Economic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainSupply chain managementBusinessGlobalizationDeregulationIndustrial organizationProcess (computing)Operations managementMarketingEngineeringEconomicsMarket economyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, interest in supply chain management has increased steadily since the 1980s when companies began to see the benefits of collaborative relationships. The supply chain concept is still nascent in India. However the need for the same, at this stage, is more than ever before because of the challenges unleashed on the competitiveness of the Indian industry by deregulation and globalisation. An essential first step in the process is to assess the current supply chain capability. The article is based on a recently concluded extensive research carried out jointly by Management Development Institute, Gurgaon and KPMG India, the first of its kind in the country, to gauge the current state of supply chain management in the Indian industry. The research concludes that a beginning has been made and large number of Indian organisations today are realising the importance of developing and implementing a comprehensive supply chain strategy - and then linking that strategy to deliver bottom-line results.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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