MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035236920 · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.004

The evolution of a management philosophy: The theory of constraints

2006· article· en· W2035236920 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Watson, John H. Blackstone, Stanley C. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Operations Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamMultitudeManagement philosophyManagement theoryPrincipal (computer security)Theory of constraintsComputer scienceManagement scienceScheduling (production processes)SociologyEpistemologyOperations researchManagementOperations managementPhilosophyMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2004, the Theory of Constraints celebrated its Silver Anniversary. In twenty‐five years, what started out as a scheduling software has evolved into a management philosophy with practices and principles spanning a multitude of operations management subdisciplines. As the Theory of Constraints has grown, so has its acceptance by both practitioners and academicians. At this point in its development, as it transitions from niche to mainstream, it is important to review what has been accomplished and what deficiencies remain so that both the promise and problems impeding greater acceptance can be examined. To that end, we review the evolution of principal TOC concepts and practices in an objective fashion.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.029
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations329
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Operations ManagementSame topicOperations Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207