MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047478120 · doi:10.4018/ijpmat.2012010104

Selection of Concrete Production Facility Location Integrating Fuzzy AHP with TOPSIS Method

2012· article· en· W2047478120 on OpenAlexaff
Golam Kabir, Razia Sultana Sumi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Productivity Management and Assessment Technologies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISAnalytic hierarchy processIdeal solutionFacility location problemProduction (economics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceFuzzy logicDelphi methodMultiple-criteria decision analysisOperations researchDelphiDecision modelSite selectionEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation and selection of a concrete production facility location is an important strategic decision making problems for both the public and private sector. The multi-dimensional, multi-criteria nature of the concrete production facility location problem limits the usefulness of any particular single objective model. In this study, social, economical, technological, environmental, and transportation factors and sub criteria have been derived to make the optimal concrete production facility location selection decision more realistic and effectual. This study shows an improved and appropriate concrete production facility location evaluation and selection model has been developed by integrating Modified Delphi and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) with Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. An example is presented to show applicability and performance of the proposed methodology followed by a sensitivity analysis to discuss and explain the results.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Productivity Management and Assessment TechnologiesSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207