Circular economy in winter road maintenance: Analysis of contract models for deploying a closed-loop supply chain
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
In winter road maintenance, abrasives are spread on roads to ensure user safety. These abrasives must be swept in the spring and often end up in landfills. To reduce landfilling and the consumption of non-renewable resources, previous work has demonstrated the potential of reusing collected street sweepings for the production of abrasives. However, the current contractual approach of the linear supply chain requires revision to enable the sharing of financial gains between the road authority and the service provider to achieve a win-win situation, primarily considering the uncertainty in the quantity of abrasives spread, which directly impacts the service provider’s profit. This study proposes two closed-loop supply chain structures and analyzes three contract models. Results from a case study in a highway context in Quebec, Canada reveal that transitioning from a linear supply chain to a closed-loop supply chain generates an average systemic financial gain of 9%. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis on the average quantity of abrasive spread demonstrates that when the road authority buys back reusable sweepings from the service provider at market value, it enables the sharing of a portion of the gain. Consequently, compared to a linear approach, adopting circular economy strategies in the winter road maintenance supply chain mitigates the potential profit loss of the service provider caused by uncertainty.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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