MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611027742 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2017.4.002

A TOPSIS method based on intuitionistic fuzzy values: a case study of North African airports

2017· article· en· W2611027742 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Houssine Tlig, Abdelwaheb Rebaï

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISComputer scienceMathematicsFuzzy logicOperations researchBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we develop a fuzzy TOPSIS method based on intuitionistic fuzzy values to solve multiple criteria decision making problems in which the performance rating of alternatives values and the weights of criteria are given by linguistic terms. Arithmetic operations between intuitionistic fuzzy values are used for normalizing imprecise ratings and weights of criteria. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested method, we propose a case study aiming to evaluate and compare the service quality of five major airports in North Africa. The suggested method helps manager of airports know the needs of passengers and the priority of enhancing service items.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207