MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183032399 · doi:10.13033/isahp.y2009.049

Fewer Comparisons - Efficiency via Sufficient Redundancy

2009· article· en· W2183032399 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

VenueISAHP proceedings · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Coding (social sciences)Consistency (knowledge bases)Data miningRank (graph theory)Information retrievalStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Too many comparisons" is a frequent complaint expressed by AHP/ANP users. This paper proposes a methodology to reduce the number comparisons while still allowing complete redundancy. It involves 4 steps: (1) Roughly rank the objects; (2) Using the lowest ranked object as the unit, estimate intensities for each of the other objects; (3) Using other objects as units, make sufficient additional comparisons until predicted consistency is acceptable, (4) Allow the user to continue with more comparisons if so desired. At the end of stage 2 or thereafter, the user can terminate comparisons. Besides allowing fewer comparisons, ranking before comparing holds out promise to reduce coding errors and improve accuracy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.284 · 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