Application of Grey-TOPSIS approach to evaluate value chain performance of tea processing chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study develops an effective method to measure value chain performance and rank them based on qualitative criteria and to determine the ranking order of the various forms of performance under study. This approach integrates the advantage of grey systems theory and TOPSIS to evaluate and rank value chain performance. Grey-TOPSIS approach has been applied to measure and rank the value chain performance of various firms. The results indicate that the proposed model is useful to facilitate multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem under the environment of uncertainty and vagueness. The model also provides an appropriate ranking order based on the available alternatives. The Grey-TOPSIS approach that will be useful to the managers to use for solving the similar type of decision-making problems in their firms in the future has been discussed. Even though, the problem of choosing a suitable performance option is often addressed in practice and research, very few studies are available in the literature of Grey-TOPSIS decision models. Also, Grey-TOPSIS model application in the tea processing firms is non-existence hence this study is the very first to apply this model in evaluating value chain performance in the tea processing firms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".