Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to apply an integrated data envelopment analysis (DEA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to a multi-hierarchy grey relational analysis (GRA) model. Consistent with the most real-life applications, the authors focus on a two-level hierarchy in which the attributes of similar characteristics can be grouped into categories. Nevertheless, the proposed approach can be easily extended to a three-level hierarchy in which attributes might also belong to different sub-categories and further be linked to categories. Design/methodology/approach The procedure of incorporating the DEA and AHP methods in a two-level GRA may be broken down into a series of steps. The first three steps are under the heading of attributes and the latter three steps are under the heading of categories as follows: computing the grey relational coefficients of attributes for each alternative using the basic GRA model which further provides the required (output) data for an additive DEA model; computing the priority weights of attributes and categories using the AHP method which provides a priori information on the adjustments of attributes and categories in additive DEA models; computing the grey relational grades of attributes in each category for alternatives using an additive DEA model; converting the grey relational grades of attributes to the grey relational coefficients of categories; computing the grey relational grades of categories for alternatives using an additive DEA model; computing the dissimilarity grades of categories for the tied alternatives using an additive DEA exclusion model. Findings The proposed approach provides a more reasonable and encompassing measure of performance in a hierarchy GRA, based on which the overall ranking position of alternatives is obtained. A case study of a wastewater treatment technology selection verifies the effectiveness of this approach. Originality/value This research is a step forward to overcome the current shortcomings in a hierarchy GRA by extracting the benefits from both the objective and subjective weighting methods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".