MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A fuzzy based method for software quality function deployment

2017· article· en· W2782912706 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Sci-Tech · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality Function Deployment in Product Design
Canadian institutionsSciencetech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentQuality function deploymentComputer scienceFuzzy logicSoftware qualitySoftwareFunction (biology)Quality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringSoftware engineeringSoftware developmentArtificial intelligenceEngineeringOperations managementOperating systemBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality function deployment (QFD) is a process which is used to understand the need of the customers. QFDis based on voice of customers so that customer's requirements (CR) can be translated into final product. QFD includes: (1) collecting customer requirements from a group of customer. (2)determining the relationship between customer requirement and technical measures. Based on our review of QFD, we identify that in literature, traditional methods less attention is given to Fuzzy Based group decision makin approach to QFD. The information available is imprecise and vague. So to deal with this uncertainty and vagueness, we apply fuzzy based group decision making approach to QFD on Hospital Management System.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.277 · 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