MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158441049 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1995.537996

Improving preference elicitation for decision support systems

2002· article· en· W2158441049 on OpenAlexaff
David Boulet, Niall M. Fraser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreference elicitationPreferenceComputer scienceDecision support systemDecision analysisDecision makerDecision theoryManagement scienceDecision engineeringEvidential reasoning approachMultiple-criteria decision analysisArtificial intelligenceBusiness decision mappingMachine learningOperations researchMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preferences form the input and control the output of all complex decision making processes. Whether they appear in the form of objective functions, goals, or criteria, preferences and their accurate elicitation are crucial to the formulation of sound decision models both in theory and in practice. Unfortunately, common methods for eliciting preferences are flawed. In this paper, alternative preference elicitation methods for multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) are reviewed and an improved iterative, interactive, two-method approach is proposed for a decision support system design. It is believed that using the proposed design takes advantage of all the merits of each of the two components, and helps the decision maker explore the elements of a problem by bringing inconsistencies in the preference structure to the forefront for resolution.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.023 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207