MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388442209 · doi:10.18280/isi.280519

Refining the ISO 9126 Model for Enhanced Decision Support System Evaluation in the Manufacturing Industry

2023· article· en· W4388442209 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johanes Fernandes Andry, Hadiyanto Hadiyanto, Vincensius Gunawan

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Diponegoro
KeywordsRefining (metallurgy)Manufacturing engineeringProcess engineeringDecision support systemComputer scienceEngineeringData miningMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the increasingly competitive landscape of the manufacturing industry, leveraging advancements in information technology has become pivotal for gaining a competitive edge.Specifically, the furniture manufacturing industry has adopted decision support systems (DSS) to meet diverse information needs.However, user concerns regarding these systems, including information reporting speed, order reception, and the accuracy of raw material usage calculations, persist.The development of any system necessitates the application of quality assurance standards that align with user requirements.In light of these concerns, the measurement of software quality emerges as an essential strategy to assuage user doubts about the DSS.Employing the ISO 9126 standard as an assessment parameter provides a reliable framework for evaluating the quality of the DSS.Although the ISO 9126 model possesses several characteristics, this study focuses exclusively on two: functionality and reliability.The anticipated outcome of this research is a refined understanding of user satisfaction pertaining to the implementation of the DSS.Consequently, this study's findings may contribute to the DSS's credibility, specifically concerning the speed of reporting, order reception, and the precision of raw material usage calculation.This, in turn, can influence the decision-making process in production, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of the manufacturing industry.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207