A Novel Application of a Hybrid Delphi-Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Technique
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
This research studies heterarchical collaboration in logistical transport. Specifically, it utilizes a hybrid Delphi-Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to explore the relevant criteria for the formation and maintenance of a strategic alignment for heterarchical transport collaboration. The importance of this work is that it applies a novel hybrid approach for identifying criteria for success to a little-studied form of supply chain collaboration: heterarchical collaborative transport. The criteria for this form of collaboration identified by the application of Delphi-AHP include ones from the technical, risk, financial, organizational, and operational categories. This novel application of the hybrid approach leveraged the expertise of transportation collaboration experts from the U.K., France, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Italy to identify key criteria for a strategic alignment between heterarchical collaboration partners. Such collaborative initiatives are important in industry as an environmentally conscious, yet efficient and effective strategy for the transport of raw materials and finished products in the supply chain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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