MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066316339 · doi:10.1002/mcda.448

Fuzzy goal programming model: an overview of the current state‐of‐the art

2009· article· en· W2066316339 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoal programmingDecision makerComputer scienceFuzzy logicState (computer science)Operations researchManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The standard Goal Programming (GP) model considers the aspiration levels (goals) as precise and deterministic. However, in practice, there are many decision‐making situations where the decision‐maker is not able to establish the goal values precisely. The goals fuzziness is more related to the nature of the objectives involved in the decision‐making situation. The Fuzzy Goal Programming (FGP) Model has been developed in the earliest of the 80s to deal with such situations. The concept of membership functions, based on fuzzy sets theory, has been used for modelling the goals fuzziness in the GP. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the current state‐of‐the art regarding the FGP model. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.303 · 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