A proposed mathematical model for closed-loop network configuration based on product life cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Products may be returned over their life cycle. Industrial experiences show that there are three main return–recovery pairs. Commercial returns are repaired. End-of-use returns often are remanufactured. In addition, end-of-life returns are recycled. However, up to now, no optimization model is proposed for closed-loop configuration based on three return–recovery pairs. The repaired and remanufactured products can be sold in the same or secondary market. In this paper, we design and configure a general closed-loop supply chain network based on product life cycle. The network includes a manufacturer, collection, repair, disassembly, recycling, and disposal sites. The returned products are collected in a collection site. Commercial returns go to a repair site. End-of-use and end-of-life returns are disassembled. Then, end-of-life returns are recycled. The manufacturer uses recycled and end-of-use parts and new parts to manufacture new products. The new parts are purchased from external suppliers. A mixed-integer linear programming model is proposed to configure the network. The objective is to maximize profit by determining quantity of parts and products in the network. We also extend the model for the condition that the remanufactured products are sent to the secondary market. The mathematical models are validated through computational testing and sensitivity analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".