Evaluation of Groundwater Remediation Technologies Based on Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petroleum is an essential resource for the development of society and its production is huge. There is a great risk of leakage of oil during production, refining, and transportation. After entering the environment, the oil pollutants will be a great threat to the environment and may endanger human health. Therefore, it is very important to remediate oil pollution in the subsurface. However, it is necessary to choose the appropriate remediation technology. In this paper, 18 technologies are evaluated through constructing a parameter matrix with each technology and seven performance indicators, and a comprehensive analysis model is presented. In this model, four MCDA methods are used. They are SWA (Simple Weighted Addition Method), WP (Weighted Product Method), CGT (Cooperative Game Theory), and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution). Mean ranking and Borda ranking methods are used to integrate the results of SWA, WP, CGT, and TOPSIS. Then two selection priorities of each method (mean ranking and Borda ranking) are obtained. The model is proposed to help decide the best choice of remediation technologies. It can effectively reduce contingency, subjectivity, one-sidedness of the traditional methods and provide scientific reference for effective decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".