Strategic blockchain adoption to deter deceptive counterfeiters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterfeiting is an ever growing problem worldwide which is exacerbated by the ease of access through e-commerce and online shopping. This calls for innovative technologies, such as blockchain, to identify, track, and prevent fake products from reaching consumers, especially for vital sectors such as the drug industry, which is the main motivation for this work. We investigate the strategic implications of using blockchain technology to deter counterfeiters. We particularly focus on the case of deceptive counterfeits that infiltrate legitimate distribution channels. Deceptive counterfeits lack the quality of genuine products and may pose immense health and safety risks to consumers who are unable to distinguish them from genuine products at the time of purchase. In contrast to prior literature that assumes that blockchain eliminates deceptive counterfeiting, we present a model that realistically considers blockchain as a technology that increases the capability of detecting counterfeits. This capability nonetheless comes at an increasing cost that may financially discourage genuine manufacturers from adopting the technology. The presented model shows that blockchain is not always financially beneficial and demonstrates that manufacturers can strategically balance between product quality and investment in blockchain to combat counterfeiting. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that, with the availability of blockchain, genuine manufacturers may be less interested to differentiate products based on quality, but rather rely on blockchain to block counterfeits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".