MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1664278360 · doi:10.3233/fi-2014-1055

On Axiomatization of Inconsistency Indicators for Pairwise Comparisons

2014· article· en· W1664278360 on OpenAlexaff
Waldemar W. Koczkodaj, Ryszard Szwarc

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonMathematicsCalculus (dental)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the notion of inconsistency in pairwise comparisons for providing an axiomatization for it. It also proposes two inconsistency indicators for pairwise comparisons. The primary motivation for the inconsistency reduction is expressed by a computer industry concept “garbage in, garbage out”. The quality of the output depends on the quality of the input.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations83
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207