Distribution center location selection using a novel multi criteria decision-making approach under interval neutrosophic complex sets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distribution centers selection is a vital task of any company to reduce costs, improve efficiency of transport flows, which yields customer satisfaction. To select the suitable distribution centers, many quantitative and qualitative criteria must be considered in the selection process. Therefore, distribution centers selection can be seen as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem under vague environment. Single-valued complex neutrosophic sets (SVCNSs), which is generalized of fuzzy sets, complex fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets; can better represent the vague information than the other sets. This paper aims to propose a new the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach based on SVCNSs to select the locations of distribution center. In the proposed TOPSIS approach, the importance weights of criteria, the ratings of alternatives, and their aggregated values are assessed and evaluated using SVCNSs. Then, this paper defines the operational rules of SVCNSs and calculates the aggregated weighted ratings of alternatives. Furthermore, the score, accuracy and certainty function are developed to rank the alternatives. Last, an application to the distribution center location selection is presented to show the advantages of the proposed approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it