MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1659849417 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.124

Quality, Reliability, Maintenance Issues in Closed-Loop Supply Chains: A Review

2015· review· en· W1659849417 on OpenAlexaff
Sriram Bhakthavatchalam, Claver Diallo, Uday Venkatadri, Abdelhakim Khatab

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemanufacturingWarrantyReliability (semiconductor)Quality (philosophy)Supply chainVariety (cybernetics)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceReverse logisticsClosed loopPreventive maintenanceReliability engineeringWork (physics)BusinessProcess managementOperations managementManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collection and recovery of end-of-life products has been a very successful research area especially around the design of reverse logistics and remanufacturing processes. Unfortunately, there is very little work on the issues of quality, reliability, maintenance & warranty for these recovered products and the remanufacturing activities that will take them to their subsequent lifecycles. This paper reviews recent and relevant literature on quality, reliability, maintenance and warranty problems in closed-loop supply chains with a focus on the remanufactured or second-hand products. A variety of mathematical tools and techniques used in the literature are mapped to the main issues considered. The findings are summarized, and the main research issues and opportunities are highlighted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207