COLLABORATION AND EVALUATION IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN: THE IMPACT ON PLANT‐LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT
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
Manufacturing organizations can potentially improve environmental management both by increasing the level of investment in environmental technologies and by shifting that investment away from pollution control and toward pollution prevention. However, managers must not only consider their own manufacturing operations in isolation, but also those of others along the supply chain. This paper explores two dimensions of supply chain activities—collaboration and evaluation—that might be leveraged by plant managers to improve environmental management in their own plant. The linkages with suppliers and customers were assessed. Both customer‐ and plant‐initiated collaboration were found to have a significant effect on the level and form of investment in environmental technologies for a sample of Canadian plants. Of greatest importance, as customer‐initiated collaborative activities increased, plant‐level investment in environmental management was increasingly allocated toward pollution prevention. In contrast, only very limited evidence was found that evaluative activities influenced environmental investment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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