Transfusions or hematopoiesis? How government subsidies and extended warranties feed decision-making about low-quality recycled used products in closed-loop supply chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper studies how government subsidies (GS) and extended warranties (EW) feed decision-making about low-quality recycled used products (RUP) in closed-loop supply chains (CLSC). Design/methodology/approach The authors use the Stackelberg game and numerical simulation to analyze how the quality of RUP affects decision-making about remanufacturing and EW. Findings The results show that (1) low-quality RUP will weaken the environmental and economic value of EW and harm the profits of the CLSC, and the retailer is more vulnerable to low-quality RUP than the manufacturer; (2) the participation of GS can weaken the negative impact of low-quality RUP on the CLSC, while the participation of EW cannot; (3) the participation of GS or EW can increase the recycling rate of used products and revenues of the CLSC; (4) the linkage of the two can further enhance the economic and environmental value of EW and significantly improve the resource utilization efficiency and benefits of the CLSC. Originality/value The authors study the impact of GS, EW and the linkage between the two on resource utilization and revenue of the CLSC.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".