MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405410966 · doi:10.1002/asmb.2178

Modeling and analysis of a warranty policy using new and reconditioned parts

2016· article· en· W2405410966 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantyRemanufacturingProfit (economics)Computer scienceProduct (mathematics)Operations researchReliability engineeringEconomicsMathematicsManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remanufacturing processes such as refurbishing and reconditioning can extend the life of a product returned from the field. This provides financial opportunities and allows manufacturers to engage in sustainable practices. However, the inability to access a sufficient quantity of reconditioned components from end‐of‐life products can force the concurrent utilization of new components. This paper deals with the determination of an optimal warranty policy where a mixture of new and reconditioned components are used to carry out replacements upon failure for products under warranty. A mathematical optimization model is developed to maximize the manufacturer's expected total profit based on four decision variables: the warranty length, the sale price, the age of reconditioned components, and the proportion of reconditioned components to be used. A numerical procedure is used to compute the optimal solution. Numerical results are provided and discussed to demonstrate the validity and the added value of the proposed approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · 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