A hybrid approach based on BOCR and fuzzy MULTIMOORA for logistics service provider selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partner selection is critical to developing successful collaboration for gaining competitive advantage in the logistics industry. In this paper, we present a hybrid approach based on BOCR and MULTIMOORA for the logistics service provider selection. The proposed approach comprises three steps. In the first step, we identify the partner selection criteria using four categories namely benefits, costs, opportunities and risks (BOCR). The second step involves generating linguistic ratings for potential partners on the identified criteria by a committee of decision-making experts. In the third and the last step, final partner selection is done using fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Linguistic information (fuzzy numbers) is used to address the lack of quantitative data. A numerical application is provided. Monte Carlo simulationbased sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine the robustness of MULTIMOORA to variation in criterion and decision maker weights. The strength of our work is the ability to perform logistics partner selection under limited or lack of quantitative data. Besides, BOCR technique allows evaluation of logistics partners from multiple perspectives namely benefits, costs, opportunities and risks. The use of MULTIMOORA technique permits the generation of robust alternative rankings due to incorporation of three inbuilt evaluation functions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".