MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084127447 · doi:10.1017/etr.2025.10003.pr6

Decision: Decarbonising global supply chains: building a sustainable future — R1/PR6

2025· peer-review· en· W7084127447 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySupply chainGreenhouse gasClimate changeGlobal warmingCarbon neutralityClimate change mitigationSupply chain management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern supply chains are vital to global commerce, but they are also major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As climate change intensifies, achieving carbon neutrality – particularly through supply chain decarbonisation – has become a global imperative. While organisations have made strides in reducing direct emissions, addressing indirect supply chain emissions presents greater complexity and urgency. We invite academic contributions that examine the challenges, enablers, potential risks, strategic approaches and innovative practices related to decarbonisation across a wide range of sectors, including manufacturing, service industries and humanitarian logistics. Emphasis is placed on holistic, multi-stakeholder approaches aligned with the GHG Protocol. The issue welcomes interdisciplinary research employing varied methodologies – ranging from empirical studies to conceptual frameworks – to inform practice, policy and sustainability transitions. By showcasing sector-specific insights and cross-cutting solutions, this issue aims to advance knowledge and action in building low-carbon, resilient supply chains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0180.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.041

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207