Coordination contract in supply chain system with product quality, promotional effort and carbon emission reduction efforts using control theory
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
The present scholarly work attempts to investigate the optimality of a low-carbon supply chain system. In this chain, the manufacturer and retailer work together under a wholesale price–cost sharing (WP–CS) agreement, where the manufacturer focuses on emission reduction and quality improvement, while the retailer handles promotional efforts. The proposed model is formulated taking variable retailers’ demand rates under the new coordination contract. Here, manufacturer contributes to a fraction of the promotional costs borne by the retailer, while as a return, retailer assists with a part of the quality enhancement and emission reduction costs of manufacturer. Then, to control the efforts of emission reduction and quality improvement over an infinite time horizon, several optimal control problems arise for both centralized and decentralized systems. All these problems are solved by implementing theories of optimal control and the Stackelberg game. The optimality conditions of the proposed system are illustrated numerically for the centralized, decentralized and coordination scenarios. The study finds that coordination contracts give better benefits to both the manufacturer and the retailer than non-coordination strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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