MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162747772 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2013.08.004

An application of fuzzy TOPSIS on ranking products: A case study of faucet devices

2013· article· en· W2162747772 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Hasan Kia, Abolfazl Danaei, Mehrdad Oroei

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISFuzzy logicRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceEngineeringOperations researchEnvironmental economicsBusinessArtificial intelligenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past two decades, there have been some concerns on application of multiple criteria decision making on prioritizing production planning. In this paper, we present an empirical investigation to use Technique of ranking by similarity by positive ideal solution (TOPSIS) for ranking various alternatives productions in an Iranian firm in Faucet industry named Irandoosh. The proposed study uses fuzzy numbers to handle uncertainty and using five criteria of profitability, life cycle, quality, social issues and production capacity, analytical hierarchy process is employed to rank various alternatives and then rank different products based on TOPSIS technique.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207