Coordination and Priority Decisions in Hybrid Manufacturing/Remanufacturing Systems
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
Companies are increasingly realizing the need to coordinate their manufacturing and remanufacturing operations. This can be a challenge due to the inherent variability in the condition and amount of returns, which has a direct impact on remanufacturing costs and leadtimes. In this paper, we develop a modeling framework to compare two alternative strategies that use either manufacturing or remanufacturing as the primary means of satisfying customer demand. Of course, in the event that the demand cannot be met by the prioritized process, the secondary process is used as a contingency. In our basic model, the priority decisions are made at the component level in replenishing the serviceable inventory, while the disposal and new component ordering decisions are made independently. The second model represents the coordination of remanufacturable and new component inventory control decisions. Using simulation‐based optimization on a large number of experiments, we observe that when prioritization is in the upstream echelon and there is no coordination in managing component stocks, there exists a critical return ratio, below which it is beneficial to give priority to manufacturing and above which it is beneficial to give priority to remanufacturing. We also see that coordinated control of the component inventories considerably reduces the importance of prioritization. These observations remain valid when congestion in the shop floor is also taken into account. We also study the benefits of state‐dependent dispatching policies in a realistic case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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