MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Screening Alternatives In Multiple Criteria Subset Selection

2004· article· en· W2398076896 on OpenAlex
D. Marc Kilgour, Siamak Rajabi, Keith W. Hipel, Ye Chen

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFOR Information Systems and Operational Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnapsack problemSelection (genetic algorithm)Mathematical optimizationClass (philosophy)Extension (predicate logic)Continuous knapsack problemContext (archaeology)Computer scienceMathematicsRelation (database)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New techniques are presenled to reduce the number of feasible alternatives in certain multiple criteria subset selection problems, thereby making it less difficult to find a good subset. The class of m-best alternatives problems is defined and the relation between dominance and potential optimalily explored in the context of this class. A program is proposed to identify whether an individually dominated alternative can belong to an optimal subset satisfying certain pre-specified constraints. The extension of the proposed method to multi-objective knapsack problems is considered. Two examples illustrate the screening procedure for m-best alternatives problems and multi-objective knapsack problems.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.132 · 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