An integrated approach to grey relational analysis, analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to propose an integration of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods in a multiattribute grey relational analysis (GRA) methodology in which the attribute weights are completely unknown and the attribute values take the form of fuzzy numbers. Design/methodology/approach This research has been organized to proceed along the following steps: computing the grey relational coefficients for alternatives with respect to each attribute using a fuzzy GRA methodology. Grey relational coefficients provide the required (output) data for additive DEA models; computing the priority weights of attributes using the AHP method to impose weight bounds on attribute weights in additive DEA models; computing grey relational grades using a pair of additive DEA models to assess the performance of each alternative from the optimistic and pessimistic perspectives; and combining the optimistic and pessimistic grey relational grades using a compromise grade to assess the overall performance of each alternative. Findings The proposed approach provides a more reasonable and encompassing measure of performance, based on which the overall ranking position of alternatives is obtained. An illustrated example of a nuclear waste dump site selection is used to highlight the usefulness of the proposed approach. Originality/value This research is a step forward to overcome the current shortcomings in the weighting schemes of attributes in a fuzzy multiattribute GRA methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it