MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147084878 · doi:10.1109/tic-sth.2009.5444357

Alternatives prioritization tool for sustainable urban energy management

2009· article· en· W2147084878 on OpenAlexaff
K.A. Nigim, H. Reiser, Maike Luiken

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsLambton College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple-criteria decision analysisRanking (information retrieval)Analytic hierarchy processPrioritizationSustainabilityProcess (computing)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Set (abstract data type)Field (mathematics)Management scienceProcess managementOperations researchEngineeringBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a prioritizing tool of viable alternatives for sustaining electric energy supply to large city. The stated alternatives put forward by experts in the field are compared against a set of criteria to come up with a prioritization mechanism. A practical multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) process is introduced and tested in a thought case study to demonstrate the validity of the process. The process and the result of the hierarchy ranking is presented and discussed and can be used as a tool for pre-feasibility modeling to encourage individuals in participating in a city sustainability development path.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207