Evaluating Supplier Involvement Using DEA and Piecewise Triangular Fuzzy AHP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been widely applied in evaluating multi-criteria decision making problems which have multi-inputs and multi-outputs. However, the traditional DEA method does neither take the decision maker’s subjective preferences to the individual criteria into consideration, nor rank the selected options or decision making units (DMUs). On the other hand, Satty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was established to rank options or DMUs under multi-inputs and multi-outputs through pairwise comparisons. But in most cases, the AHP pairwise comparison method is not perfectly consistent, which may give rise to confusions in determining the appropriate priorities of each criterion to be considered. The inconsistency implicates the fuzziness in generating the relative important weight for each criterion. In this paper, a novel method which employs both DEA and AHP methods is proposed to evaluate the overall performance of suppliers’ involvement in the production of a manufacturing company. This method has been developed through modifying the DEA method into a weighting constrained DEA method by using a piecewise triangular weighting fuzzy set which is generated from the inconsistent AHP comparisons. A bias tolerance ratio (BTR) is introduced to represent the varying but restrained weighting values of each criterion. Accordingly, the BTR provides the decision maker a controllable parameter by tightening or loosening the range of the weighting values in evaluating the overall performance of available suppliers, which in hence, overcomes the two weaknesses of the traditional DEA method.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".