Integration mechanisms for material suppliers in the construction supply chain: a systematic literature review
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 construction industry has long been criticized for its fragmented, inefficient, and uncoordinated supply chain. Thus, construction companies are actively looking for new strategies to overcome these issues and to improve their productivity. Supply chain integration is one strategy and many articles have addressed the mechanisms to help integrate the construction supply chain. However, little interest has been paid to material supplier integration despite their important role and their vast experience in the market. Hence, this study aims to identify the mechanisms that could contribute to facilitate material supplier integration in the construction supply chain. A systematic literature review was conducted to uncover the studies on this topic. A total of 310 articles were reviewed and analyzed to first reveal six integration mechanism categories: supplier qualification, supplier development program, contractual and relational policies, information sharing and integration systems, joint team working and problem solving, as well as supplier integration evaluation. Secondly, this study proposes a roadmap to illustrate when these mechanisms should be implemented in a construction project, according to both the project phases and the project delivery system. Finally, research gaps in the field are identified as well as future research directions that could be further explored by researchers and professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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