MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998164572 · doi:10.1142/s0217595908001754

EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF DERIVING PRIORITY VECTORS FROM RECIPROCAL PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRICES

2008· article· en· W1998164572 on OpenAlexafffund
Gurjit S. Bajwa, Eng Ung Choo, William C. Wedley

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Operational Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPairwise comparisonReciprocalMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pairwise comparison is commonly used to estimate the priority values of finite alternatives with respect to a given criterion. We evaluate seven specially selected direct methods of estimating priority vectors from reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices under four effectiveness measures. A simulation experiment is designed starting with true priority vectors that represent difficult cases of "no obvious best alternative" and "two equal best alternatives". The simulation results suggest that the geometric mean method is in general the best method with the normalized column mean method as a close second best.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Operational ResearchSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207