MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884535491 · doi:10.3233/jifs-171069

A fuzzy rule-based approach to prioritize third-party reverse logistics based on sustainable development pillars

2018· article· en· W2884535491 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

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaguenessComputer scienceOutsourcingFuzzy logicReverse logisticsRobustness (evolution)Fuzzy setOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Data miningProcess managementArtificial intelligenceSupply chainBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient reverse logistics structure plays an important role in improving market competitiveness. The complexity of reverse logistics operations, customer service improvement, and costs elimination highlight the necessity of reverse operations outsourcing to the third-party reverse logistics providers (3PRLPs). Investigating and selecting an appropriate 3PRLP is recognized as a significant issue by manufacturers. This problem is affected by uncertainty, basically due to the vagueness intrinsic to the assessment of qualitative factors. This paper aims to propose a structured approach to prioritizing 3PRLPs based on sustainability criteria under fuzzy environment which accommodate the uncertainty associated with the vagueness of qualitative criteria. The proposed approach is composed of two main steps in which the first step employed the fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to select the effective criteria and the second step used Mamdani Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) model to cope with the vagueness that exists in the 3PRLPs evaluation process. If-then scenarios are employed to design rules of a FIS model which are devised by experts. The Experts’ knowledge about the problem is incorporated into the FIS system. This is a significant benefit of the proposed approach, in comparison with approaches which incorporate fuzzy set theory with multi-criteria decision-making models. An industrial case study is conducted to highlight the real-life applicability of the proposed approach. In addition, a sensitivity analysis is performed to confirm the robustness.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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