MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343846868 · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2015.2500273

On Pythagorean and Complex Fuzzy Set Operations

2015· article· en· W2343846868 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Dick, Ronald R. Yager, Omolbanin Yazdanbakhsh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPythagorean theoremFuzzy logicFuzzy set operationsMathematicsGeneralizationFuzzy numberFuzzy setDistributive propertyAlgebra over a fieldFuzzy classificationDefuzzificationNegationArtificial intelligenceType-2 fuzzy sets and systemsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex fuzzy logic is a new multivalued logic system that has emerged in the last decade. At this time, there are a limited number of known instances of complex fuzzy logic, and only a partial exploration of their properties. There has also been relatively little progress in developing interpretations of complex-valued membership grades. In this paper, we address both problems by examining the recently developed Pythagorean fuzzy sets (a generalization of intuitionistic fuzzy sets). We first characterize two lattices that have been suggested for Pythagorean fuzzy sets and then extend these results to the unit disc of the complex plane. We thereby identify two new complete, distributive lattices over the unit disc, and explore interpretations of them based on fuzzy antonyms and negations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations175
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy SystemsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207