MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400356410 · doi:10.3389/frsus.2024.1264461

Word-of-mouth in agent-based simulation model of reverse logistics

2024· article· en· W4400356410 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalTransport Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsReverse logisticsComputer scienceWord (group theory)Word of mouthNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceBusinessLinguisticsAdvertisingSupply chainMarketingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agent-based modeling and simulation is a method well suited for studying individual behavior and interactions among members of a population connected by social networks. Although the development of such simulation models can be relatively complex, it is even more challenging to develop models that are empirically valid. In the case of reverse logistics, the sophisticated and difficult-to-predict behavior of consumers must be modeled. In this paper, an agent-based simulation model of consumer behavior and interactions was configured to conduct a case study of the voluntary deposit collection program for wine bottles in the Val-Saint-François region of Quebec. As this collection program was officially launched in 2019, two empirical samples were obtained to test the validity of the model and study how social interactions such as word of mouth contributes to the success of the collection program. The first sample represents the amount of glass collected during the last 26 weeks of 2019, while the second sample covers the first 13 weeks of 2020. Having observed an increase in collection rates between 2019 and 2020, word of mouth was introduced into the model to explain this phenomenon. Statistical tests show that the model is indeed valid with the inclusion of diffusion of awareness, as the simulation results are significantly consistent with the empirical data. The validation of the model demonstrates the viability of using multiple heterogeneous data-sources to configure a simulation model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior without using Structural Equation Modeling.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.286 · 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