Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Management efforts to design, develop, and operate more sustainable supply chains encompass an increasingly complex variety of social and environmental issues. More sustainable supply chains must now consider how product, operations, natural resources, technologies, and multiple tiers of organizations collectively create value for a diverse set of stakeholders. For multiple reasons, research and practice have tended to adopt an outcome-based perspective, whereby these efforts focus on a sustainability “destination,” which suffers from several shortcomings. Drawing from research in operations management, stakeholder theory, institutional theory, and innovation, this chapter posits how more sustainable supply chains might be co-defined and co-developed by emphasizing a journey that engages multiple stakeholders beyond supply chain partners. Design thinking is a very promising approach, with its iterative steps of empathy, defining the problem, ideate, prototype, and test. This journey-based perspective provides a framework for structuring engagement and encouraging openness to new observations and insights. Finally, the breadth and depth of collaboration with stakeholders, the nature of governance mechanisms, and the form and scale of resource investment all provide the means to assess the journey as it occurs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".