MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025737436 · doi:10.12735/jbm.v3i4p01

Solving Decision Problems with Dependent Criteria by New Fuzzy Multicriteria Method in Excel

2014· article· en· W2025737436 on OpenAlex
Jaroslav Ramı́k, Radomír Perzina

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business & Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicComputer scienceMicrosoft excelOperations researchManagement scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new MCDM method based on fuzzy pair-wise comparisons and a feedback between the criteria. The evaluation of the weights of criteria, the variants as well as the feedback between the criteria is based on the data given in pair-wise comparison matrices. Extended arithmetic operations with fuzzy numbers are used as well as ordering fuzzy relations to compare fuzzy outcomes. An illustrating numerical example is presented to clarify the methodology. A special SW – Microsoft Excel add-in named FVK was developed for applying the proposed method. Comparing to other software products, FVK is free, able to work with fuzzy data and utilizes capabilities of widespread spreadsheet Microsoft Excel.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.320 · 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