MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992899512 · doi:10.1142/s0219622006001939

ELICITING RATIO PREFERENCES FOR THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS WITH VISUAL INTERFACES: A NEW MODE OF PREFERENCE MEASUREMENT

2006· article· en· W1992899512 on OpenAlex
Sajjad Zahir

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

VenueInternational Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPairwise comparisonAnalytic hierarchy processPreferenceComputer scienceClass (philosophy)HierarchyMode (computer interface)Process (computing)VisualizationArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionMachine learningStatisticsOperations researchMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although verbal and numerical scales are commonly used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process for pairwise comparisons, new experiments with computer-based visual tools confirm that ratio preferences can be effectively and efficiently elicited using adjustable visual tools and simultaneous comparisons, as well. Such an improved approach shows promise in the design of a new class of multi-criteria decision support system both for individual and group decisions.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.321 · 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