MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516033435 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2016.8.002

A fuzzy- rough set approach to determine weights in maintenance quality function deployment

2016· article· en· W2516033435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Davy George Valavi, V.R. Pramod

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality function deploymentQuality (philosophy)Function (biology)Set (abstract data type)Fuzzy logicComputer scienceSoftware deploymentFuzzy setData miningMathematical optimizationOperations researchMathematicsReliability engineeringEngineeringOperations managementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintenance Qualitn Function Deployment (MQFD) is a methodology for improving the quality and effectiveness of maintenance services in a manufacturing organization. One major part of it is House of Quality (HoQ). HoQ translates the experts’ voice into technical requirements for the improvement of maintenance quality. These data are generally vague in nature. Fuzzy numbers are generally used to represent vague data in HoQ. Since some parameters are predefined in fuzzy approach, the experts’ opinion may not be truly reflected in the HoQ analysis. In this work, a rough set - fuzzy approach, is proposed for MQFD to overcome this drawback.The objective of this model is to prioritize the technical requirements effectively with the proper reflection of customers/experts’ perceptions in the output. An illustrative example is presented to explain this approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicQuality Function Deployment in Product DesignFrench-language works237,207