MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129244966 · doi:10.11575/prism/33938

The Theory of Constraints in Academia: It's Evolution, Influence, Controversies, and Lessons

2008· article· en· W2129244966 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of constraintsDisseminationField (mathematics)Focus (optics)Political scienceManagement sciencePublic relationsEngineering ethicsSociologyEpistemologyOperations researchEngineeringOperations managementLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‗Theory of Constraints‘ (TOC)—more appropriately described as Management by Constraints (MBC)—is a case of a development that has raised an interesting debate in the field of Operations Management. Points of debate include how much of TOC is a ‗refocus‘, how effective it has been, and how it relates and compares to other developments in Operations Management. In this paper, we focus on what lessons academics may learn about disseminating controversial developments from the debate that has accompanied TOC. With the tremendous information explosion, we may see more such controversial developments. Therefore examining the case of TOC may help academics, the people who are expected to play an important role in dissemination, to deal with similar developments in the future, in a balanced and critical manner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.247 · 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