Introduction to the special issue on innovative data sources for empirically building and validating theories in Operations Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract All research methods have strengths and weaknesses. The two dominant empirical methodologies in operations management are the survey and the case study. Reliance on a limited number of methodologies can influence the body of knowledge that that a field generates – and even the problems that the field collectively chooses to investigate or not investigate. The special issue attempts to “push the envelope” in terms of the data sources used in operations management. In particular, the following data sources are used: laboratory study, customer comment data, third‐party web site quality ratings, process characteristics collected from e‐commerce web sites themselves, environmental performance reports, and a publicly available research database. Researchers contemplating their data gathering strategy must consider the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The introduction to special issue discusses positives and negatives of both conventional and innovative data sources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.015 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".