MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091777784 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2010.01.007

Designing fuzzy expert system for creating and ranking of tourism scenarios using fuzzy AHP method

2010· article· en· W2091777784 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Makui, Zohreh Nikkhah

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Fuzzy logicAnalytic hierarchy processTourismData miningOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important activities of tour and travel agencies is to select the appropriate tour configuration. There are normally two primary objectives of season and time period to set a group of cities called designing tour scenarios. The success of tour scenarios is deeply related to the experiments and wisdom of the experts and planners in travel agencies. This paper presents a fuzzy rule decision making to find the suitable set of cities where different possible criteria are ranked using analytical hierarchy procedure. The proposed model of this paper is applied for a real-world case study of Iranian tour agency and the results are analyzed under different circumstances.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.411
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207