MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317932088 · doi:10.3390/app13031541

Warranty Cost Analysis for Multi-State Products Protected by Lemon Laws

2023· article· en· W4317932088 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsWarrantyProduct (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringActuarial scienceDuration (music)BusinessOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEngineeringLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of lemon laws in America has played an important role in improving the quality of after-sales service. Nowadays, many countries, such as China, Canada, Europe, Australia, Singapore, and South Korea, have adopted lemon laws in various industries to protect the interest of consumers. From the perspective of manufacturers, accurate estimation of the cost of the warranty service is of great importance in guiding product pricing, quality control, and design of warranty policies. According to the terms of different lemon laws, two warranty models considering the repair time and numbers for failures are proposed in this paper. Products under these models are multi-state, and Markov processes are used to model the degradation processes of products. In the first model, a product will be replaced by a new one if the time for a repair or the number of failures exceeds their respective thresholds over the warranty period. Under the second model, both catastrophic and minor failures are considered. A product will be replaced if one of the following three conditions is met over the warranty period: the time of one repair action (regardless of failure type) is longer than a time threshold; the number of minor failures is larger than a preset threshold; a catastrophic failure occurs. The expected warranty cost rates under the two proposed warranty models are derived under the assumption of renewable warranty terms. Numerical examples are given to illustrate the results obtained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it