Process Research Methods for Studying Supply Chains and Their Management
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 Processes are fundamental to supply chains and their management. Yet, traditional research approaches to supply chain management (SCM) reflect only a limited understanding of process, offering accounts that overlook the constitutive role of dynamically interrelated processes and how their interplay over time shapes the trajectories of supply chains. This article argues that a process‐philosophical perspective is better suited as a starting point for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting the fluid and interwoven processes of supply chains and their co‐evolving environments. Drawing on examples from SCM research, the article offers insights into the nature of process‐thinking and process‐theoretical assumptions, including the analytical choices and challenges entailed in process research. Besides providing methodological guidance, the article highlights how process research methods equip SCM scholars with a powerful lens for studying transformational issues in this field, including sustainability, resilience, and the use of digitalization and technology.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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