Supply Chain Partner Communication in a Managed Programme in the UK Water Industry: A Case Study with Social Network Analysis
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
The water industry in every country aims to effectively and efficiently provide water with satisfactory quality in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. To this end, it is critical to achieve effective communication among the partners in water supply chain networks. In this paper, we focus on one of the UK's largest water utility companies and its eight main contractors and analyze the factors influencing partner and network communication in a managed programme of their asset supply chain. We employ social network analysis to conduct the cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of partner communication. Factors found to influence the communication network are grouping of projects within the programme, individual's organisational affiliation, status, tenure, elapsed time through the programme lifecycle, and co-location. Our contributions to practice include demonstrating water programme management factors that influence communication and trust and how social network analysis can better inform them about intra- and interorganisational relationships. Moreover, the methodology introduced in this study may be applied to water management in other parts of the world.
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 | 0.010 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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