MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905923734 · doi:10.1002/mcda.1466

The Stochastic Goal Programming Model: Theory and Applications

2012· article· en· W1905923734 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyComputer scienceDecision makerStochastic programmingOperations researchGoal programmingStochastic modellingManagement scienceMathematical economicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Supported by a network of researchers and practitioners, the goal programming (GP) model is alive today more than ever and is continually fed with theoretical developments and new applications with resounding success. The standard formulation of the GP model was introduced in the earliest of 1960s, and since then, important extensions and numerous applications have been proposed. One of these variants is the stochastic GP model that deals with the uncertainty of some decision‐making situations by using stochastic calculus. In such a situation, the decision maker is not able to assess with certainty the different parameters. However, he or she can provide some information regarding the likelihood of occurrence of the decision‐making parameter values. The aim of this paper is to highlight the main methodological developments of the stochastic GP model and to present an overview of its applications in several domains. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.310
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