Integrating technology, collaboration, and sustainability in supply chains and project management: A comprehensive review of efficiency, resilience, and strategic alignment
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
This study reviews the literature on Supply Chain Management (SCM) and Project Management (PM) to serve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through technological integration. Technological innovations may enhance operational efficiency and decision-making as per SDGs 8 and 9. However, the success of such innovations depends on managerial competency. In this regard, operational coordination can optimize multi-actor networks, which can improve resource allocation and productivity. Moreover, inter-organizational relationships would nurture governance and trust. Additionally, lifecycle project management and stakeholder engagement can enhance operational continuity and sustainability, which can further be supported by stochastic optimization and AI-enabled decision making. The study recommends to integrate circular economy, lean practices, and environmentally responsible frameworks with operational objectives to achieve SDGs. Thus, the interdependence of technology, human capital, governance, and strategy is necessary to achieve efficient SCM and PM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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