GRAHP TOP model for supplier selection in Supply Chain: A hybrid MCDM approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision makers of various disciplines are facing challenges because of vast availability of options in the real world. Even though each and every decision made by a decision maker is being done with a great knowledge and conscience, the decision maker needs suitable support to choose the most favorable option to acquire great results in an agile environment. Supplier selection is imperative for an efficient supply chain management. Many industries are in need of effective decision making tools which aids them in valuable supplier selection. This paper proposes a model using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) tools viz., Grey Relational Analysis (GRA), Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). GRA is used to shortlist the criteria from the available options, while AHP is used to assign weights to the criteria. The final supplier in the selection process is obtained using TOPSIS. The proposed GRA-AHP-TOPSIS model (GRAHP TOP) is used to analyze and formulate the important criteria and the applicability of the model is tested on a case of a small scale industry located in South India.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".