MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741217832 · doi:10.1108/jopp-09-02-2009-b003

Public vs. private sector perspectives on supply chain management

2009· article· en· W2741217832 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Procurement · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic Procurement and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementPurchasingPublic sectorPrivate sectorBusinessSupply chain managementSupply chainNew public managementEmpirical researchMarketingPublic relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature suggests public procurement professionals have different perspectives on supply chain management (SCM) vis-à-vis their private sector counterparts. Based on a recent survey of Canadian purchasers, this paper presents an empirical comparison of public vs. private views on SCM. The questionnaire is structured around a set of 54 topics, tools and techniques; along with four perspectives on the relationship between purchasing and SCM. Important findings from this survey of SCM professionals include: (1) public procurement professionals have narrow perspectives on SCM compared to their private sector counterparts; and (2) public sector professionals have different perceptions regarding the importance of topics, tools and techniques to support their performance on the job.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.207 · 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