A decision support system for classifying supplier selection criteria using machine learning and random forest approach
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
Supplier selection is an important process in supply chain management that sets a foundation for a long-term partnership with suppliers that can greatly contribute to the success or failure of a business. This study aims to identify, validate and propose a comprehensive list of supplier selection criteria applicable to most organizations. The proposed integrated framework comprises four widely used supervised machine learning (ML) models of Random Forest (RF) classifier and RF-based feature selection algorithm to identify a comprehensive list of critical criteria and their performance measures. We present a case study and show the RF classifier’s performance increased by 3.89% in accuracy and 5.17% in f-score after removing non-critical criteria. Nine criteria are identified as critical among 30 potential criteria considered for supplier selection. Quality, On-Time Delivery, Material Price, and Information sharing are the topmost critical criteria. Another key finding of this study is that transportation cost is a crucial criterion that has received little attention in prior studies. Managers can use this framework to focus on specific criteria when selecting suppliers rather than considering less important criteria or prioritizing the criteria and the suppliers according to their requirements. Many supplier selection studies are reported in the literature, but few studies have utilized machine learning to improve efficacy and effectiveness in supplier evaluation and selection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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