MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558728866 · doi:10.6000/2371-1647.2016.02.09

Application of Wald Function to OR and AND Fuzzy Operations in No- Data Problems

2016· article· en· W2558728866 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Houju Hori, Yukio Matsumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFuzzy measure theoryFuzzy numberType-2 fuzzy sets and systemsBayes' theoremMembership functionFuzzy logicExtension (predicate logic)Fuzzy setFuzzy mathematicsFunction (biology)Applied mathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceStatisticsBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective qualifiers of Wald's theory of decision functions are the fuzzy events of the subsequent fuzzy set theory. Wald's notion of subjective qualifiers involves applying integral transforms to convert states of nature into fuzzy events. Probabilities of fuzzy events and arithmetic formulas for fuzzy utility function values are readily derived from Wald's integral transforms. We have applied Zadeh's extension principle to Wald's integral transforms and demonstrated that fuzzy mathematics is effective when applied to multiple subjective probability distributions conjoined by OR and AND operations. In this paper, we focus on no-data problems and construct a fuzzy Bayes' theorem for cases in which a membership function and multiple subjective probability distributions conjoined by OR or AND operations are given. In addition, we devise a formulation for the corresponding decision making problem.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Management Sciences & Information SystemsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207