Alternative approach for learning and improving the MCDA method PROAFTN
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
The objectives of this paper are (1) to propose new techniques to learn and improve the multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) method PROAFTN based on machine learning approaches and (2) to compare the performance of the developed methods with other well-known machine learning classification algorithms. The proposed learning methods consist of two stages: The first stage involves using the discretization techniques to obtain the required parameters for the PROAFTN method, and the second stage is the development of a new inductive approach to construct PROAFTN prototypes for classification. The comparative study is based on the generated classification accuracy of the algorithms on the data sets. For further robust analysis of the experiments, we used the Friedman statistical measure with the corresponding post hoc tests. The proposed approaches significantly improved the performance of the classification method PROAFTN. Based on the generated results on the same data sets, PROAFTN outperforms widely used classification algorithms. Furthermore, the method is simple, no preprocessing is required, and no loss of information during learning. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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