MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285984299 · doi:10.32738/jeppm.201301.0004

 Integrating Fuzzy Delphi with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process for Multiple Criteria Inventory Classification

2013· article· en· W2285984299 on OpenAlexaff
Golam Kabir, Razia Sultana Sumi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Project and Production Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicDelphiDelphi methodAnalytic hierarchy processComputer scienceInventory controlDefuzzificationOperations researchHierarchyData miningControl (management)Fuzzy set operationsFuzzy classificationFuzzy numberFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic approach to the inventory control and classification may have a significant influence on company competitiveness. In practice, all inventories cannot be controlled with equal attention. In order to efficiently control the inventory items and to determine the suitable ordering policies for them, multiple criteria inventory classification is used. In this paper, a systematic and logical approach is structured for multiple criteria inventory classification through integrating Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). Fuzzy Delphi method used to identify the most important and significant criteria and, Fuzzy AHP is used to determine the relative weights of the attributes or criteria, and to classify inventories into different categories. To accredit the proposed model, it is implemented for the 351 raw materials of switch gear section of Energypac Engineering Limited (EEL), a large power engineering company of Bangladesh. Implementation results show that the proposed method can be used in inventory classification.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Project and Production ManagementSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207