Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 68, 2016
2016 The 3rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA 2016)
Article Number 20004
Number of page(s) 7
Section Information Education and Learning
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166820004
Published online 01 August 2016
  1. A. Demir, Üniversitedeki Seçmeli Ders Uygulamasının Öğrenciler ve Öğretim Üyelerince Değerlendirilmesi, PDRD, 2 7 (1996).
  2. Z. Anik, Nesne Yönelimli Yazılım Dillerinin Analitik Hiyerarşi ve Analitik Network Prosesi ile Karşılaştırılması ve Değerlendirilmesi, GÜ, (2007).
  3. T. L. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. JSS, 1 1 (2008).
  4. J. P. Brans, P. H. Vincke, A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method, MS, 31 647–656 (1982).
  5. M. Dağdeviren, & E. Eraslan, Promethee Sıralama Yöntemi ile Tedarikçi Seçimi, GÜMMF, 23 69–75. (2008).
  6. B. E. Woolnough, Why Students Choose Physics, or Reject It. Physics Education, 29 368–374 (1994).
  7. V. Bewick, & J. Southern, Factors Influencing Students’ Choice of Mathematics at A-Level. TMIA 16 74–78 (1997).
  8. F. R. Isobel, Influences on Choice of Course Made by University. Year 1 Bioscience Students a Case Study. IJSE, 22, 1201–1218. (2000).
  9. S. P. Hodgkinson, & J. M. Innes, The Attitudinal Influence of Career Orientation in 1 st-Year University Students: Environmental Attitudes as a Function of Degree Choice. JEE, 32, 37–40. (2001).
  10. S. Dündar, Ders Seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Proses Uygulaması. SDUJFE & AS, 13 (2008).
  11. H. Tezcan, & Y. Gümüş, Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Seçmeli Ders Tercihlerine Etki Eden Faktörlerin Araştırılmasi. GEFD, 28 1–17 (2008).
  12. V. A. Salomon, F. S. Duarte, J. L. Junior, & N. Paula, Faculty selection for a Brazilian private higher education institution. In International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1 (2009).
  13. Ö. Aydin, S. Öznehir, E. Akcali, Ankara İçin Optimal Hastane Yeri Seçiminin Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci İle Modellenmesi. SDÜİ ve İBFD, 14 69–86 (2009).
  14. B. S. Kutlu, Y. A. Abali, T. Eren, Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleri İle Seçmeli Ders Seçimi. KÜSBD, 2 5–25 (2012).
  15. A. Bansal, P. Kumar, 3PL selection using hybrid model of AHP-PROMETHEE, IJS & OM, 14 373–397 (2013).
  16. N. Bedir, T. Eren, AHP-PROMETHEE Yöntemleri Entegrasyonu İle Personel Seçim Problemi: Perakende Sektöründe Bir Uygulama, 16. Uluslararası Ekonometri, Yöneylem Araştırması Ve İstatistik Sempozyumu, 16 (2015).
  17. N. Bedir, E. H. Özder, T. Eren, The Third Party Logistics Firm Selection Using AHP-PROMETHEE Methods. 13th International Logistics and Supply Chain Congress: 13 (2015).
  18. H. Kazan, S. Özçelik, & E. H. Hobikoğlu, Election of Deputy Candidates for Nomination with AHP-Promethee Methods. P-SBS, 195 603–613 (2015).
  19. T. L. Saaty, How to Make a Decision : The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Interfaces, 6 19–43 (1994), [CrossRef]
  20. J. P. Brans, P. H. Vincke, B. Mareschall, How to select and how to rank projects:The PROMETHEE method, EJOR, 14 228–238 (1986). [CrossRef]
  21. R. S. Bhatti, P. Kumar, & D. Kumar, A Fuzzy AHP model for 3PL selection in Lead Logistics Provider scenarios. EIS & IIICI, 1 261–277 (2010).

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.