Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the evaluation of different methods of product recovery for GM. The evaluation is conducted through the application of a decision making model. The model evaluates product recovery options on the basis of two categories: optimization of objective factors and market demand. The first category in the model focuses on optimization of five objective factors, including environmental impact (E), cost (C), quality (Q), resource consumption (R), and time (T). Goal programming is used to solve the optimization problem. The goal programming is supported by the construction of a decision making tree with three branches: remanufacturing, refurbishing, and current manufacturing. The solution of the decision tree helps determine the best method of product recovery for GM. The second category in the model focuses on the evaluation of market demand. This further supports the selection of the best method for product recovery. To evaluate market demand, a Bayesian forecasting model is used in the construction of a decision making tree. The study shows that the availably of products information including the objective factors and market demand, has a positive impact on making product recovery decisions. It also shows how recovery decisions can be modeled in decision making tress to represent the impact of product information on those decisions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".