MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1656365822 · doi:10.5296/jmr.v7i5.8044

Supplier Selection by AHP in KMC Pharmaceutical: Use of GMIBM Method for Inconsistency Adjustment

2015· article· en· W1656365822 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceQuality (philosophy)Operations researchProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The supplier selection problem is one of the most important constituent for managers. There are some influential criteria in the selection of supplier and in this paper selection of supplier includes quality, cost, service, risk management and supplier profile. However, it is frequently impossible to find a best supplier in all areas. In addition, lack of proper selection and evaluation of excels supplier can affect long term survival of firms. The contribution of this paper is in threefold. First, a geometric mean induced bias matrix (GMIBM), is used to quickly identify the most inconsistent data in the judgment matrix. This helps to preserves most of the original information in matrix, but also faster than existing models. Secondly, it solves the supplier selection process problem in a Kathmandu Medical College (KMC) pharmaceutical firm using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model. AHP is a decision making method and considered a reliable model for supplier evaluation problem in KMC. At last, Development of Supplier Selection Process (SSP) shows the whole steps followed for supplier selection.</p>

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.681
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.056 · 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