MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012069023 · doi:10.1111/jscm.12224

Theorizing Supply Chains with Qualitative Big Data and Topic Modeling

2020· article· en· W3012069023 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

VenueJournal of Supply Chain Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataUnpackingRelevance (law)Supply chainComputer scienceFunction (biology)Data scienceValue (mathematics)Qualitative propertyQualitative researchKnowledge managementSociologyMarketingBusinessData miningSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of Big Data has opened up opportunities to study supply chains. Whereas most scholars look to quantitative Big Data to build theoretical insights, in this paper we illustrate the value of qualitative Big Data. We begin by describing the nature and properties of qualitative Big Data. Then, we explain how one specific method, topic modeling, is particularly useful in theorizing supply chains. Topic modeling identifies co‐occurring words in qualitative Big Data, which can reveal new constructs that are difficult to see in such volume of data. Analyzing the relationships among constructs or their descriptive content can help to understand and explain how supply chains emerge, function, and adapt over time. As topic modeling has not yet been used to theorize supply chains, we illustrate the use of this method and its relevance for future research by unpacking two papers published in organizational theory journals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.211 · 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