MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409257704 · doi:10.3390/pr13041120

Optimizing Solar PV Deployment in Manufacturing: A Morphological Matrix and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach

2025· article· en· W4409257704 on OpenAlexafffund
Citlaly Pérez, Pedro Ponce, Aminah Robinson Fayek, Brian Anthony, Russel Bradley, Therese Peffer, Alan Meier, Qipei Mei

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSoftware deploymentFuzzy logicTOPSISPhotovoltaic systemMatrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationProcess engineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceEngineeringOperations researchArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing energy demand of the industrial sector and the need for sustainable solutions highlight the importance of efficient decision making in solar photovoltaic (PV) implementation. Selecting optimal PV configuration is complex due to the interdependent technical, economic, environmental, and social factors involved. This study introduces an integrated decision-making method combining a morphological matrix and fuzzy TOPSIS to systematically select and rank optimal PV system configurations for manufacturing firms. While the morphological matrix exhaustively examines possible design solutions based on sensing, smart, sustainable, and social (S4) attributes, the fuzzy TOPSIS method ranks the alternatives by handling uncertainty in decision making. A case study conducted in a Mexican manufacturing company validates the methodology’s effectiveness. The optimal PV configuration identified comprehensively addresses operational and sustainability criteria, covering all lifecycle stages. This approach demonstrates quantitative superiority and greater robustness compared to existing fuzzy TOPSIS-based methods for solar PV applications. The findings highlight the practical value of data-driven, multi-criteria decision making for industrial solar energy adoption, enhancing project feasibility, cost efficiency, and environmental compliance. Future research will incorporate discrete event simulation (DES) to further refine energy consumption strategies in manufacturing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207