Bibliographic record
Abstract
Companies that have traditionally sold physical products have begun to increase “services” offered alongside the product. Sometimes businesses have even gone to the extreme of selling only the “benefit” of the physical good as a service, while retaining ownership of the service-supporting good, such as the Xerox copier in your office. This movement is frequently referred to as “servitization” (Baines et al. 2009), which is sometimes illustrated by the popular saying: “people don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.” We argue that, with servitization, because the supplying company retain ownership of the physical good supporting the service provided, the company is incentivized to put increased efforts, from design to disposal of the physical good, into designing in processes that will maximize the value that can be recouped from the good after the end of its economic life. This would be consistent with efforts toward increased sustainability in supply chains. In the traditional transactional sale of physical goods companies does not have an incentive to make decisions aimed at keeping the value of the product throughout its economic life. Companies would not be interested in extending its economic life either, or even being concerned about how reusable, remanufacture-able, refurbish-able or recyclable the product is. This has implications for the level of environmental sustainability achieved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".