Blockchain and Business Process Management (BPM) Synergy: A Comparative Analysis of Modeling Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology has become a powerful disruptive force that upends established ideas in several industries. A fascinating point of convergence is that of blockchain technology and Business Process Management (BPM), where the distributed and immutable characteristics of blockchain promise to completely transform the modeling, implementation, and oversight of business processes. This symbiosis offers a singular chance to develop corporate processes that are more efficient, safe, and transparent. Nevertheless, to guarantee that blockchain-specific components are accurately represented in these processes, modeling techniques need to be critically examined as part of integrating blockchain into BPM. This literature review examines blockchain-BPM integration using different modeling methodologies. Though well-established, traditional BPM approaches may need help with blockchain-specific aspects. Blockchain-oriented modeling includes smart contracts and decentralized consensus. Hybrid models with blockchain and traditional elements are popular. Adaptability, model clarity, and blockchain integration are evaluated in the analysis. This literature review aims to improve corporate processes’ efficiency, security, and transparency by investigating how to model the integration of blockchain and BPM better.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".