Applying TOPSIS to selecting business accounting software: A case study at Truong Son Technology Development Investment Joint Stock Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to build a model and set of criteria to evaluate and select business accounting software providers for Truong Son Technology Investment and Development Joint Stock Company. The study helped choose the most suitable supplier that meets the criteria that the company desired. The research proposed the Technique of Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) model and was also applied in the case of selecting accounting software suppliers for Truong Son Technology Investment and Development Joint Stock Company. There were 5 business accounting software packages considered: Misa business accounting software, Bravo accounting software, FAST Accounting software, Effect accounting software, and Gamma accounting software. The ranking results of accounting software providers at Truong Son Technology Investment and Development Joint Stock Company were as follows: A1 (Misa Business Accounting Software) was the best supplier, second-ranking was A3 (FAST Accounting software), followed by A2 (Bravo Accounting Software) in third place. The findings of this study could be used as a valuable reference for businesses to choose the best supplier.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".