Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is great uncertainty and volatility in the evaluation and measurement of green supplier satisfaction. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap based on the information entropy theory (IET) to describe the probability of green supplier satisfaction degree. Design/methodology/approach The authors introduce a formal model using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), IET and entropy technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method to evaluate green supplier satisfaction and promote them for the better implementation of green supply chain management practices. Findings The first finding is developing an effective framework for green supplier satisfaction, incorporating various measures of environmental dimension. Second, a hybrid uncertainty decision method is introduced, by integrating AHP and IET and entropy-TOPSIS. Research limitations/implications One of the main limitations of the research is that the authors introduced a conceptual example. Real-world applications need to investigate the accuracy and effectiveness of these measures, and the operational feasibility of this method. Originality/value This is one of the first works to provide a comprehensive appraisal model for evaluation of green supplier satisfaction. This study and research method can form general guidelines, and organizations can increasingly benefit from using green supplier satisfaction evaluation as a management tool. Green supplier satisfaction evaluation is just the beginning.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".