An empirical survey to investigate quality of men's clothing market using QFD method
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
One of the most important techniques on improving customer satisfaction in clothing and textile industry is to increase the quality of goods and services. There are literally different methods for detecting important items influencing clothing products and the proposed model of this paper uses quality function deployment (QFD). The proposed model of this paper designs and distributes a questionnaire among some experts to detect necessary factors and using house of quality we determine the most important factors impacting the customer's clothing selection. The proposed study of this paper focuses men who are 15 to 45 years old living in Yazd/Iran. The brand we do the investigation sells the products in three shopping centers located in this city. We have distributed 100 questionnaires and collected 65 properly filled ones. Based on the results of our survey, suitable design, printing and packaging specifications, necessary requirements, optimization of production planning and appropriate sewing machine setting are considered as the most important characteristics influencing the purchase of a clothing products.
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 | 0.027 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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