Assessing the Economic Rationality of Remanufacturing Products<sup>*</sup>
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
Consideration is given to the factors that affect the determination of the profitability of remanufacturing product. This results in a technique being developed and applied to assess the economic rationality of remanufacturing a variety of products. A study of price preferences from 49 subjects finds that in many cases an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) will earn greater overall profits by offering both new and remanufactured versions of their product. Differences in pricing behavior are noted between both products and individuals. There also appears to be differences in switching behavior. It is, however, reasonable to treat the transfer in preference from new product to remanufactured product as linear over some price range. This assumption allows for a relatively simple calculation of under what circumstances it is economically rational for an OEM to produce both new and remanufactured products and in such situations what the relative prices, sales, and profits should result. The remanufactured products considered are retreaded tires, auto parts, cell phones, toner cartridges, printers/copiers, and disposable cameras. In addition to the article's academic contributions, techniques and insights are offered for practitioners to assist them in understanding the opportunities and implication of pursuing remanufacturing as an addition to their current products.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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