The Effect of Introducing Mandatory Clauses on Procurement Documents: An Evaluation of the Perception of Procurement Professionals in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study sought to evaluate the effect of introducing mandatory clauses on procurement documents as perceived by the procurement professionals in Alberta, Canada. A descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The location of the study was Alberta, Canada. The population consisted of procurement officials in Alberta. Purposive sampling technique was used to select a total of 12 respondents. Research instruments, (self-administered questionnaires) via email, Face to face and/ or zoom interviews with key stakeholders were used for the study. From executive management, management. Focus group discussions with procurement professionals. across ministries and project Managers. The data were analysed as interviews and focus group discussions, qualitative, thematic analysis and transcription. Cronbach’s alpha co-efficient was used to check internal consistency and reliability of scale. From the study it was concluded that there is much effect of introducing mandatory clauses on procurement documents perceived by procurement professionals. Mandatory requirements are important to highlight as a proposal which must meet these to be compliant. One of the recommendations made from the study states that managers should always have in their consciousness, the need to improve the outcome of the project though such value initiatives as effective time management, cost reduction, continuous improvement, rewarding those that finish the project before time, good relationship among the parties, further innovations, flexibility and many more.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".