MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599592661 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2017.3.002

A subjective and objective fuzzy-based analytical hierarchy process model for prioritization of lean product development practices

2017· article· en· W2599592661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel O. Aikhuele, Faiz Mohd Turan

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Analytic hierarchy processPrioritizationFuzzy logicNew product developmentHierarchyProcess (computing)Process managementBusinessOperations researchMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a subjective and objective fuzzy-based Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model is proposed. The model which is based on a newly defined evaluation matrix replaces the fuzzy comparison matrix (FCM) in the traditional fuzzy AHP model, which has been found ineffective and time-consuming when criteria/alternatives are increased. The main advantage of the new model is that it is straightforward and completely eliminates the repetitive adjustment of data that is common with the FCM in traditional AHP model. The model reduces the complete dependency on human judgment in prioritization assessment since the weights values are solved automatically using the evaluation matrix and the modified priority weight formula in the proposed model. By virtue of a numerical case study, the model is successfully applied in the determination of the implementation priorities of lean practices for a product development environment and compared with similar computational methods in the literature.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207