A Robust Analytical Network Process for Biocomposites Supply Chain Design: Integrating Sustainability Dimensions into Feedstock Pre-Processing Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural fiber-based biocomposites are rapidly gaining traction in sustainable manufacturing. However, their supply chain (SC) designs at the feedstock pre-processing stage often lack robust multicriteria decision-making evaluations, which can impact downstream processes and final product quality. This case study proposes a sustainability-driven multicriteria decision-making framework for selecting pre-processing equipment configurations within a hemp-based biocomposite SC. Using a cradle-to-gate system boundary, four alternative configurations combining balers (square vs. round) and hammer mills (full-screen vs. half-screen) are evaluated. The analytical network process (ANP) model is used to evaluate alternative SC configurations while capturing the interdependencies among environmental, economic, social, and technical sustainability criteria. These criteria are further refined with the inclusion of sub-criteria, resulting in a list of 11 key performance indicators (KPIs). To evaluate ranking robustness, a non-linear programming (NLP)-based sensitivity model is developed, which minimizes the weight perturbations required to trigger rank reversals, using an IPOPT solver. The results indicated that the Half-Round setup provides the most balanced sustainability performance, while Full-Square performs best in economic and environmental terms but ranks lower socially and technically. Also, the ranking was most sensitive to the weight of the system reliability and product quality criteria, with up to a 100% shift being required to change the top choice under the ANP model, indicating strong robustness. Overall, the proposed framework enables decision-makers to incorporate uncertainty, interdependencies, and sustainability-related KPIs into the early-stage SC design of bio-based composite materials.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".