A Systems Thinking Analysis of the Supply Chain Social Responsibility Literature
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
Abstract Given its material impact on bottom lines, social responsibility became essential to supply chain sustainability strategies. The authors of this paper reviewed the relevant literature and discovered its reliance on approaches like corporate social responsibility and its marginalization of systems thinking. This situation undermines the contributions of this literature, as it could be reductionist from a systemic perspective. Reductionism limits solutions to suboptimizations incapable of achieving multifinal and holistic outcomes. To assess this literature, the authors conducted a mapping study to analyse its distribution over four systemic paradigms: functionalism, interpretivism, emancipation, and postmodernism. The results showed that it clustered unevenly around these paradigms and lacked pluralism in perspective. This paper is significant as it revealed the innate inability of most of the supply chain social responsibility literature in offering creative and holistic solutions. Therefore, this literature can only resolve some social responsibility factors allowing the persistence and resurfacing of social responsibility messes.
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 | 0.032 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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