MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015497865 · doi:10.1093/jcde/qwaa039

An efficient controlled elitism non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective supplier selection under fuzziness

2020· article· en· W3015497865 on OpenAlexaff
Vahid Hajipour, Madjid Tavana, Francisco J. Santos‐Arteaga, Alireza Alinezhad, Debora Di Caprio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Design and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSortingMathematical optimizationTOPSISGenetic algorithmParticle swarm optimizationTaguchi methodsSelection (genetic algorithm)Ideal solutionMulti-objective optimizationSupply chainComputer scienceFuzzy logicMaximizationAlgorithmMathematicsOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Supplier selection and order allocation constitute vital strategic decisions that must be made by managers within supply chain management environments. In this paper, we propose a multi-objective fuzzy model for supplier selection and order allocation in a two-level supply chain with multi-period, multi-source, and multi-product characteristics. The supplier evaluation objectives considered in this model include cost, delay, and electronic-waste (e-waste) minimization, as well as coverage and weight maximization. A signal function is used to model the price discount offered by the suppliers. Triangular fuzzy numbers are used to deal with the uncertainty of delay and e-waste parameters while the fuzzy Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used to obtain the weights of the suppliers. The resulting NP-hard problem, a Pareto-based meta-heuristic algorithm called controlled elitism non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (CENSGA), is developed. The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) and Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO) are used to validate the applicability of the CENSGA algorithm and the Taguchi technique to tune the parameters of the algorithms. The results are analysed using graphical and statistical comparisons illustrating how the proposed CENSGA dominates NSGA-II and MOPSO in terms of mean ideal solution distance (MID) and spacing metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Design and EngineeringSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207