MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213180076 · doi:10.1504/ijsom.2007.012136

Fuzzy AHP-based supplier selection in e-procurement

2007· article· en· W4213180076 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Morad Benyoucef, Mustafa S. Canbolat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Services and Operations Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPurchasingAnalytic hierarchy processProcurementComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Supplier evaluationOperations researchSupplier relationship managementQuality (philosophy)Fuzzy logicProcess (computing)Process managementOperations managementSupply chainBusinessSupply chain managementArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisations need information technology to help them make quick, right and accurate purchasing decisions and better manage their relationships with their suppliers. This help comes in the form of electronic procurement (e-procurement) technology augmented with supplier selection systems. Supplier selection is a multi-criteria decision-making process that deals with the optimisation of conflicting objectives such as quality, cost and delivery time. If performed manually, this process is complex and time-consuming. Although supplier selection is heavily discussed in the literature and models have been designed for it, few efforts have been dedicated to developing a system based on these models. We propose a supplier selection system based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a commonly used model for multi-criteria decision-making problems. The system integrates fuzzy concepts and empirical data. We report on a study conducted in a hospital to validate the design of the supplier selection system and its underlying fuzzy AHP model.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Services and Operations ManagementSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207