MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125734567 · doi:10.1002/mcda.492

Group Decision Makers' Preferences Modelling within the Goal Programming Model: An Overview and a Typology

2012· article· en· W2125734567 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Medina Munro, Belaı̈d Aouni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyGoal programmingArticulation (sociology)Group decision-makingPreferenceManagement scienceDecision modelComputer scienceDecision makerDecision analysisProcess (computing)Group (periodic table)Decision processOperations researchArtificial intelligencePsychologyMachine learningSociologyEconomicsEngineeringSocial psychologyPolitical scienceMathematical economicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Goal Programming (GP) model is one of the first models that have been developed to deal with managerial decision‐making problems where several incommensurable and conflicting objectives are involved. The GP variants integrate the decision maker's preferences differently. This model has also been applied to group decision‐making situations. The aim of this paper is to propose a new typology based on preferences articulation of decision makers through the GP model. This typology is based on the articulation and the elucidation process of the group decision makers' preferences. Copyright © 2012 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision AnalysisSame topicOptimization and Mathematical ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207