MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607195755 · doi:10.1504/ijpd.2016.10004479

The relevance of configuration management in supply chain management in the aerospace industry

2016· article· en· W2607195755 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

VenueInternational Journal of Product Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospaceSupply chainProcess managementSupply chain managementRelevance (law)BusinessProduct (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Reliability (semiconductor)Systems engineeringManufacturing engineeringEngineeringEngineering managementMarketingAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the aerospace industry, the management of complex projects and interfaces with suppliers from all over the world are a daily challenge. Therefore, it is imperative that aerospace companies reinforce their configuration and supply chain management processes to better control product evolution and integrate all players to deliver products and services with a high level of quality as well as to enhance their levels of reliability and competitiveness in the marketplace. Thus, this study examines the relevance of Configuration Management (CM) in Supply Chain Management (SCM) in the aerospace industry. It also identifies some important issues when the relationship between these processes is not well established, and it proposes good practices to integrate such processes and provide benefits to stakeholders.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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