Collaborative Product–Service Approach to Aviation Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul. Part I: Quantitative Model
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
This two-part paper proposes a new collaborative approach to airframe maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO). A quantitative model is introduced in Part I to represent the business relationships between original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and MRO enterprises. In Part II, the presented model is used to assess potential financial benefits obtained by each of these stakeholders as a result of the collaboration. The quantitative model is built to capture the main dependencies between an independent MRO enterprise operating in South America and its interactions with three major airframe OEMs. Interviews were conducted with MRO and OEM professionals to identify the most impactful operational resources on MRO activities. Stakeholders with different characteristics in terms of production capacity, annual revenue, fleet size, and age are considered in numerical studies to quantify the viability of the proposed collaborative business model in different scenarios. The obtained results show that optimal investment levels must be determined for each stakeholder to ensure the viability of the proposed collaborative business model, confirming the need for a quantitative method to aid service designers making decisions. The novel collaborative model contributes to the relatively scarce literature on the topic, and promotes effective and structured collaboration between OEMs and MRO enterprises aiming at delivering higher added value to end customers (operators).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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