DEVELOPING PURCHASING'S FOUNDATION<sup>*</sup>
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
This is the first of a two‐part paper, which reviews the evolution of the supply management function from the 18th century to 1940. A second paper will examine the continued evolution of supply management from 1940 until the present. The 1830–1940 period in North America was one of tremendous development for purchasing. It started with occasional reference in management texts and, particularly after 1900, saw the evolution of a host of ideas representing the foundation of today's perspective on supply management. At no time did purchasing practitioners and academics see the function as a narrow buying activity. Clearly, our predecessors were well aware of the benefits of integration and would have been comfortable with today's supply chain management precepts. They also recognized value, cost and price analysis, value analysis, purchasing research, talent management, outsourcing the supply function, supplier relationships, strategy and the need for performance measurement. They strived to contribute effectively to organizational goals and strategies, well aware of the potential impact of their actions on organizational success. An understanding of supply's evolution may not only assist today's supply management practitioners and academics in placing current practices and theories in context but also in charting our future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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