A COPRAS-F base multi-criteria group decision making approach for site selection of wind farm
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
Today global warming is on the rise and the natural resources are getting consumed at a faster rate. Power consumption has increased many folds to cater the human need. Thus renewable energy resources are the only option available at this juncture. Wind energy is one of the renewable energy. Location selection for wind farm takes an important role on power generation. However, the location selection is a complex multicriteria problem due to the criteria factors which are conflicting in nature as well as uncertain. The process becomes more complex when a group of decision makers are involved in decision making. In the present study, a COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment) based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodology is done under fuzzy environment with the help of multiple decision makers. More specifically, this study is aimed to focus the applicability of COPRAS-F as a strategic decision making tools to handle the group decision-making problems.
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 | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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