A three-stage model for closed-loop supply chain configuration under uncertainty
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
In this paper, a general closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) network is configured which consists of multiple customers, parts, products, suppliers, remanufacturing subcontractors, and refurbishing sites. We propose a three-stage model including evaluation, network configuration, and selection and order allocation. In the first stage, suppliers, remanufacturing subcontractors, and refurbishing sites are evaluated based on a new quality function deployment (QFD) model. The proposed QFD model determines the relationship between customer requirements, part requirements, and process requirements. In addition, the fuzzy sets theory is utilised to overcome the uncertainty in the decision-making process. In the second stage, the closed-loop supply chain network is configured by a stochastic mixed-integer nonlinear programming model. It is supposed that demand is an uncertain parameter. Finally in the third stage, suppliers, remanufacturing subcontractors, and refurbishing sites are selected and order allocation is determined. To this end, a multi-objective mixed-integer linear programming model is presented. An illustrative example is conducted to show the process. The main novel innovation of the proposed model is to consider the CLSC network configuration and selection process simultaneously, under uncertain demand and in an uncertain decision-making environment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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