MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035796580 · doi:10.1021/es9036836

Energy Implications of Product Leasing

2010· article· en· W2035796580 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Koji Intlekofer, Bert Bras, Mark Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationCanadian Natural Resources LimitedNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRemanufacturingProduct (mathematics)Original equipment manufacturerBusinessLife spanProduct lifecycleEnvironmental economicsProcess (computing)New product developmentOperations managementIndustrial organizationRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceMarketingManufacturing engineeringEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of advocates have argued that leasing is a "greener" form of business transactions than selling. Leasing internalizes the costs of process wastes and product disposal, placing the burden on the OEMs, who gain from reducing these costs. Product leasing results in closed material loops, promotes remanufacturing or recycling, and sometimes leads to shorter life cycles. This paper provides two case studies to quantitatively test these claims for two distinct product categories. Life cycle optimization and scenario analysis are applied, respectively, to the household appliance and computer industries to determine the effect that life spans have on energy usage and to what extent leasing the product versus selling it may influence the usage life span. The results show that products with high use impacts and improving technology can benefit from reduced life cycles (achieved through product leases), whereas products with high manufacturing impacts and no improving technology do not.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations67
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207