MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132765709 · doi:10.1002/mcda.431

Correcting illegitimate rank reversals: proper adjustment of criteria weights prevent alleged AHP intransitivity

2008· article· en· W2132765709 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processMultiplicative functionNormalization (sociology)Rank (graph theory)Mathematical economicsAxiomMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsCombinatoricsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This note comments on a paper by Triantaphyllou ( J. Multi‐Crit. Decis. Anal. 2001; 10 : 11–25) that attempts to demonstrate new types of rank reversal that can occur with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). He contends that the reversals are attributable to the various types of normalization that are used with the addition step in AHP synthesis. His paper goes on to suggest that the multiplicative AHP should be used instead. This note shows that the cause of the problem is another one: AHP's independence axiom, which prohibits adjusting the criteria weights when the set of alternatives or the type of normalization change. If the criteria weights are adjusted properly, none of the rank reversals will occur. Copyright © 2009 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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.276 · 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