MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176298331

Non-discriminating criteria in the AHP : Removal and rank reversal:

2004· article· en· W2176298331 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTNO Repository · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processWeightingRank (graph theory)HierarchyDecision makerComputer scienceProcess (computing)MathematicsMultiple-criteria decision analysisStatisticsMathematical optimizationOperations researchCombinatoricsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A non-discriminating criterion is defined as a criterion where the decision-maker is indifferent among the alternatives. One would therefore expect the final rank order of the alternatives not to be affected by removing it. A previously published paper by J.S. Finan and W.J. Hurley (2002) showed, however, that in the Analytic Hierarchy Process removing such a criterion from a multilevel hierarchy can reverse rank. In this paper, we offer an explanation of this particular rank reversal phenomenon and show how it can be avoided. We do this by taking into account that there is a link between the normalisation and weighting processes, which suggests adjusting appropriate weights when removing criteria. Further, we discuss whether a non-discriminating criterion should be removed in the first place.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.305 · 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