Determinants of purchasing team usage in the supply chain
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
Abstract Increased attention on supply chain management has highlighted the pivotal role that supply chain management and purchasing teams can play in the overall competitiveness of many firms. This paper presents findings from an exploratory study that analyzes the impact of purchasing’s strategic role, industry context and purchasing organizational structure, on the use of various forms of purchasing teams. Using survey data from a broad sample of industries, we found that team usage was a two‐dimensional construct: internal teams and councils, and customer teams. In addition, purchasing’s strategic role comprised two factors: product and technology planning, and external systems planning. After controlling for firm size, purchasing’s strategic role was positively related to the greater use of internal teams and councils, but not customer teams. Industry context also played a role in the usage of teams, with internal teams and councils more extensively used by the firms that manufactured discrete goods. Meanwhile, firms in the service sector favored the use of customer teams. Finally, both industry context and purchasing’s organizational structure were related to the strategic role assumed by purchasing, with a decentralized structure tending to reduce that strategic role.
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 | 0.001 | 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