Demand-Enhancing Services for Tangible Products in a Distribution System With Online and Off-Line Channels
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
Services such as delivery, warranty, and product returns that are bundled with various tangible products play a critical role in their market performance. As manufacturers strive to streamline operations and deliver consistent services across channels, this article analytically examines whether those who sell their products directly online and off-line through retailers should direct control, delegate to retailers, or outsource to third parties the delivery of these services. Our main findings are as follows. Manufacturers should not outsource demand-enhancing services to third parties if they do not ensure relatively low operating costs, as they reduce the level of service provided to customers. Assuming no channel partner has a cost advantage in service delivery, manufacturers should directly control the provision of services that are used identically by online and off-line customers. Manufacturers may not be able to directly and cost effectively offer services that are used differently by online and off-line customers. In such a context, depending on the relative sizes of off-line and online market bases, retailers may be considered either as single providers of the service for both online and off-line customers or jointly with manufacturers as providers for off-line customers only. We discuss the implications of these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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