Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making evaluation of e-learning websites using FAHP, COPRAS, VIKOR, WDBA
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
The present paper emphasizes on the development of a hierarchical model using Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making (FMADM) method for the selection of E-learning websites. The working of the model developed in this research mainly consists of three steps: (i) Summarization and identification of selection indexes, (ii) Selection indexes weights calculations using Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and (iii) Ranking of alternatives by implementing three MADM analytical methods as Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS), Visekriterijumsko Kompromisno Rangiranje (VIKOR) and Weighted Distance Based Approximation (WDBA). In order to demonstrate the applicability and utility of the proposed methods, an empirical example related to the selection of E-learning websites that are widely used to learn the 'C' Programming Language for the software development is carried out. In addition, the results of these three methods are also compared to analyze the critical aspects of the selection indexes. It strongly shows that the developed FMADM model of this paper could be an efficient and effective assessment tool.
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 | 0.059 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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