Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Based on Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
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
Fuzziness is inherent in decision data and decision making process. In this paper, interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set is used to capture fuzziness in multi-criteria decision making problems. The purpose of this paper is to develop a new method for solving multi-criteria decision making problem in interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments. First, we introduce and discuss the concept of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy point operators. Using the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy point operators, we can reduce the degree of uncertainty of the elements in a universe corresponding to an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set. Then, we define an evaluation function for the decision-making problem to measure the degrees to which alternatives satisfy and do not satisfy the decision-maker's requirement. Furthermore, a series of new score functions are defined for multi-criteria decision making problem based on the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy point operators and the evaluation function and their effectiveness and advantage are illustrated by examples.
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 | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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