MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110429564 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2013.03.002

Ranking fuzzy numbers using preference ratio: A utility function approach

2013· article· en· W2110429564 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soheil Sadi‐Nezhad, Parisa Shahnazari-Shahrezaei

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceRanking (information retrieval)Fuzzy logicFunction (biology)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationData miningArtificial intelligenceStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ranking fuzzy numbers is one of the most important phases in any decision making process in fuzzy environments. In most cases, we deal with fuzzy numbers in the field of evaluating alternatives with fuzzy information or linguistic variables. This paper investigates ranking fuzzy numbers using the concept of preference ratio, introduces the weakness of this method, and proposes a new approach that overcomes the shortcoming of existing method. The proposed approach which is based on the concept of utility function takes the opinion of DM for ranking fuzzy numbers into account.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.133 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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