Selection of optimum plant layout using AHP-TOPSIS and WASPAS approaches coupled with Entropy method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Layout design and selection often have notable effects on the performance of the manufacturing industry. This research investigates the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach to find out the optimum plant layout design. The proposed methodology is demonstrated through the real-life setting for the gearbox manufacturing industry. Manual and computerized layout generation approach is used efficiently and accordingly, six layout designs are generated. The approach takes into account qualitative as well as quantitative performance criteria for the selection of layout design. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied to obtain the weight of qualitative measures. Ranking of alternatives is obtained through the application of Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Weighted Aggregated Sum-Product Assessment (WASPAS) both integrated with the Entropy method. Empirical findings indicate that the rank acquired using the TOPSIS method is perfectly parallel to those acquired through the WASPAS method, which confirms the applicability and potential of these methods. Also, the effect of the parameter λ in WASPAS method on performance score is stable. At the same time, this paper analyses the rank reversal phenomenon and proves that the ranking proposed by TOPSIS satisfies ranking stability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".