A fuzzy stochastic approach to the multicriteria selection of an aircraft for regional chartering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This article deals with the problem of decision support for the selection of an aircraft. This is a problem faced by an airline company that is investing in regional charter flights in Brazil. The company belongs to an economic group whose core business is logistics. The problem has eight alternatives to be evaluated under 11 different criteria, whose measurements can be exact, stochastic, or fuzzy. The technique chosen for analyzing and then finding a solution to the problem is the multicriteria decision aiding method named NAIADE (Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environments). The method used allows tackling the problems by working with quantitative as well as qualitative criteria under uncertainty and imprecision. Another considerable advantage of NAIADE over other multicriteria methods relies in its characteristics of not requiring a prior definition of the weights by the decision maker. As a conclusion, it can be said that the use of NAIADE provided for consistent results to that aircraft selection problem. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it