Improve GMRACCF Qualifications via Collaborative Filtering in Vehicle Sales Chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Vehicle Allocation Problem (VAP) in the vehicle sales chain has three bottlenecks in practice. The first is to collect relevant cooperation or conflict information, the second is to accurately quantify and analyze other factors affecting the distribution of cars, and the third is to establish a stable and rapid response to the vehicle allocation management method. In order to improve the real-time performance and reliability of vehicle allocation in the vehicle sales chain, it is crucial to find a method that can respond quickly and stabilize the vehicle allocation strategy. Therefore, this paper addresses these issues by extending Group Multi-Role Assignment with Cooperation and Conflict Factors (GMRACCF) from a new perspective. Through the logical reasoning of closure computation, the KD45 logic algorithm is used to find the implicit cognitive Cooperation and Conflict Factors (CCF). Therefore, a collaborative filtering comprehensive evaluation method is proposed to help administrators determine the influence weight of CCFs and Cooperation Scales (CSs) on the all-round performance according to their needs. Based on collaborative filtering, semantic modification is applied to resolve conflicts among qualifications. Large-scale simulation results show that the proposed method is feasible and robust, and provides a reliable decision-making reference in the vehicle sales chain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".