A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search for lost or hidden things is a very interesting and complicated issue. This problem concentrates on the study of how to exploit resources to discover a target with unknown location. On the other hand, search problem may be formulated as a difficult decision problem because it is affected by various crucial decision factors such as search cost, search time, the probability of discovering, etc. In this paper, a new multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach on the basis of best-worst method (BWM) and simple additive weighting (SAW) is suggested to rank potential locations of lost or hidden targets. BWM is a novel subjective weighting technique and compared to the most common subjective method, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), requires fewer comparisons and gives more trustworthy outcomes. In this paper, BWM is used to gain the criteria weights and SAW is employed to rank the locations regarding the decision factors. This study demonstrates that BWM is easier and works better than AHP, also perfect agreement in the results of COPRAS, TOPSIS and SAW is observed. The suggested approach is very easy as well as flexible and provides an efficient method which can be developed to tackle other decision problems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it