The Impact of Order Quantity on the Returns Policy in Supply Chain Coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing orders is a major goal for manufacturers. For this, the coordination mechanism and returns policy are often viewed as useful tools. Accordingly, this paper analyzes the impact of order quantity on the returns policy in a supply chain. We investigate the effect of order decisions in the individual channel versus the coordinating channel. Moreover, we compare the difference between the returns policy and no-returns policy on the ordering decision. The results indicate that a retailer’s optimal order quantity in the coordinating channel is larger than that in the individual channel. Furthermore, when the returns policy is ignored, we find that the retailer’s optimal or der quantity in the coordinating channel will be twice as large as that in the individual channel. In addition, the retailer does not always orders higher quantities when the manufacturer provides a returns policy. The higher quantities only exist in the two parties’ self-interested manner. However, in the joint model, the optimal order quantity of the retailer is the same before and after return. These results conclude that the returns policy is relevant and positive factor in the individual model, whereas it becomes irrelevant in the coordinated model.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".