A Smart‐City Scope of Operations Management
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
We are entering an era of great expectations towards our cities. The vision of “smart city” has been pursued worldwide to transform urban habitats into superior efficiency, quality, and sustainability. This phenomenon prompts us to ponder what role the scholars in operations management (OM) can assume. In this essay, we express our initial thoughts on expanding OM to the smart‐city scope. We review smart‐city initiatives of governments, industry, national laboratories and academia. We argue that the smart‐city movement will transition from the tech‐oriented stage to the decision‐oriented stage. Hence, a smart city can be perceived as a system scope within which planning and operational decisions are orchestrated at the urban scale, reflective of multi‐dimensional needs, and adaptive to massive data and innovation. The benefits of studying smart‐city OM are manifold and significant: contributing to deeper understanding of smart cities by providing advanced analytical frameworks, pushing OM knowledge boundaries (such as data‐driven decision making), and empowering the OM community to deliver much broader impacts than before. We discuss several research opportunities to embody these thoughts, in the interconnected contexts of smart buildings, smart grid, smart mobility and new retail. These opportunities arise from the increasing integration of systems and business models at the urban scale.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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