Ranking factors involved in product design using a hybrid model of Quality Function Deployment, Data Envelopment Analysis and TOPSIS 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
Quality function deployment (QFD) is one such extremely important quality management tool, which is useful in product design and development. Traditionally, QFD rates the design requirements (DRs) with respect to customer requirements, and aggregates the rating to get relative importance score of DRs. An increasing number of studies emphasize on the need to incorporate additional factors, such as cost and environmental impact, while calculating the relative importance of DRs. However, there are different methodologies for driving the relative importance of DRs, when several additional factors are considered. TOPSIS (technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution) is suggested for the purpose of the research. This research proposes new approach of TOPSIS for considering the rating of DRs with respect to CRs, and several additional factors, simultaneously. Proposed method is illustrated using by step-by-step procedure. The proposed methodology was applied for the Sanam Electronic Company in Iran.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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