Interval Double-Sided Fuzzy Chance-Constrained Programming Model for Water Resources Allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, an interval double-sided fuzzy chance-constrained programming (IDFCP) approach is developed for identifying water resources allocation strategies under uncertainty. Through incorporating interval parameter programming, double-sided fuzzy programming, and chance-constrained programming into a general framework, IDFCP can effectively deal with uncertainties expressed as intervals, probability distributions, and fuzzy sets. IDFCP can also examine the risk of violating system constraints. IDFCP is then applied to water resources allocation in the middle and upper reaches of Fen River Basin that is associated with multiuser, multiregion, and multisource features. Interval solutions of the compromise decision alternatives are generated under different scenarios in association with different risk levels of violating constraints (i.e., p levels), fuzzy membership degrees (i.e., α-cut levels), credible degrees (i.e., minimum and maximum), and reclaimed water utilization ratios. Results obtained show that water availability can affect water allocation pattern and system benefit. Results are helpful for decision makers to identify desirable strategies under various environmental and system-credibility constraints in more profitable and sustainable ways.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".