MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612546169 · doi:10.13033/ijahp.v9i1.479

AHP/ANP is well represented in MCDM 2017, Ottawa

2017· article· en· W2612546169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Birsen Karpak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processMultiple-criteria decision analysisComputer scienceOperations researchAnalytic network processEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MCDM 2017 is progressing well. There are about 200 papers accepted and among them at least about 15% are AHP/ANP related. There are two invited sessions on AHP/ANP Theory and Applications in Supply Chain Management and Industrial Engineering, each having four papers, in addition to about twenty contributed papers on AHP/ANP. https://doi.org/10.13022/ijahp2017.v9.is1.479

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.007

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy ProcessSame topicManagement and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207