MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974762386 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2010.07.002

Adjusted permutation method for multiple attribute decision making with meta-heuristic solution approaches

2010· article· en· W1974762386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hossein Karimi, Alireza Rezaeinia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermutation (music)HeuristicMeta heuristicMathematical optimizationMathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The permutation method of multiple attribute decision making has two significant deficiencies: high computational time and wrong priority output in some problem instances. In this paper, a novel permutation method called adjusted permutation method (APM) is proposed to compensate deficiencies of conventional permutation method. We propose Tabu search (TS) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to find suitable solutions at a reasonable computational time for large problem instances. The proposed method is examined using some numerical examples to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. The preliminary results show that both approaches provide competent solutions in relatively reasonable amounts of time while TS performs better to solve APM.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.360
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207