Methodology for performance evaluation of dairy farmers based on fuzzy logic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X11273Keywords:
performance evaluation, fuzzy logic, agribusinessAbstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X11273
The article presents the results of a research on the performance evaluation of dairy farmers in the state of rondônia, in which we tested the possibility of using an evaluation methodology based on fuzzy logic, as an alternative to traditional evaluation methods. this article demonstrates the results of a research that presents the fuzzy logic applied in the performance evaluation of dairy farmers; such as main objective and basis in the development of a methodology for evaluating performance. the research, exploratory study, was divided into two stages: the first deals with the conceptual domain of the proposition methodology, from the systematic literature review concepts; and second clarifies the operational domain through simulations. the activities of the operating domain took as their basis data from 485 dairy farmers from 23 municipalities in rondônia, productive 2008 and collected in 2009 by the centro de estudos interdisciplinar em desenvolvimento sustentável da amazônia. at the end of the investigation demonstrates the viability of the proposed methodology based on fuzzy logic, indicate the potential for success as a tool to aid in evaluating the performance of dairy farmers. the proposed methodology allows us to explain better, fundamentally, those cases that are on the borders of the classes of the classification of traditional methods of performance evaluationDownloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
