MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792953410 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2017.11.004

Selection of optimal variant route based on dynamic fuzzy GRA

2018· article· en· W2792953410 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jalil Heidary Dahooie, Amir Salar Vanaki, Navid Mohammadi, Hamid Reza Firoozfar

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Fuzzy logicMathematical optimizationComputer scienceOperations researchMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the high costs of construction and maintenance, an optimum design methodology is one of the most important steps towards the development of transportation infrastructure, especially freeways. However, the effects of different variables on the decision-making process to find an optimal variant have caused the choice to become a very difficult and professional task for decision makers. So, the current paper aims to determine the optimal variant route for Isfahan-Shiraz freeway through MADM approaches. First, evaluation indices for an optimal route variant are derived through literature review and expert panel assessment. Then, a dynamic fuzzy GRA method is used for weightings and optimal route selection. Bases on the results, the road longevity, views of NGOs and route integration are identified as the highest-weighted criteria in route variant prioritization. Further, Route 3 is defined as the priority for the optimal variant for Isfahan–Shiraz freeway, which is the main basis in practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207