Planning Water Resources Allocation Under Multiple Uncertainties Through a Generalized Fuzzy Two-Stage Stochastic Programming Method
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a generalized fuzzy two-stage stochastic programming (GFTSP) method is developed for planning water resources management systems under uncertainty. The developed GFTSP method can deal with uncertainties expressed as probability distributions, fuzzy sets, as well as fuzzy random variables. With the aid of a robust stepwise interactive algorithm, solutions for GFTSP can be generated by solving a set of deterministic submodels. Furthermore, the possibility information (expressed as fuzzy membership functions) can be reflected in the solutions for the objective function value and decision variables. The developed GFTSP approach is also applied to a water resources management and planning problem to demonstrate its applicability. Solutions of decision variables and objective function value are expressed as fuzzy membership functions, reflecting the fluctuating ranges of decision alternatives under different plausibilities. And thus, the water alternatives can be directly derived from the obtained fuzzy membership functions when the preferred α value is predefined by decision makers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it