MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999696793 · doi:10.1504/ijetm.2006.008251

Integrating multicriteria analysis and geographic information systems: the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) approach

2005· article· en· W1999696793 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Technology and Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralityGeographic information systemWatershedComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Data miningMathematical optimizationOperations researchMathematicsMachine learningGeographyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ordered weighted averaging (OWA) is a family of multicriteria combination (aggregation) procedures. The generality of OWA is related to its capability to implement different combination operators by selecting appropriate order weights. By specifying suitable order weights it is possible to change the form of aggregation from the minimum-type combination through all intermediate types including the conventional weighted linear combination, to the maximum-type combination. The paper focuses on the OWA method and an approach for integrating geographic information system (GIS) and OWA. It also discusses an application of the GIS-OWA system to a real-world environmental management problem that involves developing watershed management strategies in the Cedar Creek watershed in Ontario, Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.284 · 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