MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992359248 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2014.2387096

Grey-Based Preference in a Graph Model for Conflict Resolution With Multiple Decision Makers

2015· article· en· W1992359248 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaRoyal Society of Canada
KeywordsPreferenceConflict resolutionGraphComputer scienceOperations researchMathematicsManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEconomicsStatisticsPolitical scienceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To capture uncertainty in preferences, definitions based on grey numbers are incorporated into the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR), a realistic and flexible methodology to model and analyze strategic conflicts. A general grey number is a real number that may be a member of a discrete set of real numbers, or may fall within one or several intervals. It can represent uncertain preference of decision makers in a meaningful way. Here, a grey-based preference structure is developed and integrated with GMCR. Utilizing a number of grey-based ideas, solution concepts describing human behavior under conflict in the face of uncertain preference are defined for a conflict model. This grey-based GMCR is then applied to a generic sustainable development conflict with uncertain preferences in order to demonstrate how it can be conveniently utilized in practice.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.101 · 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