Incorporating linguistic, probabilistic, and possibilistic information in a risk-based approach for ranking contaminated sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different types of uncertain information-linguistic, probabilistic, and possibilistic-exist in site characterization. Their representation and propagation significantly influence the management of contaminated sites. In the absence of a framework with which to properly represent and integrate these quantitative and qualitative inputs together, decision makers cannot fully take advantage of the available and necessary information to identify all the plausible alternatives. A systematic methodology was developed in the present work to incorporate linguistic, probabilistic, and possibilistic information into the Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), a subgroup of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods for ranking contaminated sites. The identification of criteria based on the paradigm of comparative risk assessment provides a rationale for risk-based prioritization. Uncertain linguistic, probabilistic, and possibilistic information identified in characterizing contaminated sites can be properly represented as numerical values, intervals, probability distributions, and fuzzy sets or possibility distributions, and linguistic variables according to their nature. These different kinds of representation are first transformed into a 2-tuple linguistic representation domain. The propagation of hybrid uncertainties is then carried out in the same domain. This methodology can use the original site information directly as much as possible. The case study shows that this systematic methodology provides more reasonable results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".