MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889798809 · doi:10.3968/10453

Comparison Chain Method for AHP

2018· article· en· W2889798809 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEvaluation Methods in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processPairwise comparisonRationalityComputer scienceChain (unit)Decision makerExtension (predicate logic)Matrix (chemical analysis)Operations researchMathematical economicsMathematical optimizationManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEpistemologyEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the principle of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, under the condition giving the pairwise comparison judgment matrix of the decision maker, a new method to determinate the decision maker’s priority vector for the comparison objects called Comparison Chain Method is proposed with a numerical example illustrating its applicability. Finally, the possible strong, weakness and extension of the chain comparison method are discussed, the comparisons with the other methods are made leading to the rationality of CCM, and the possible future research directions for AHP are foreseen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.365 · 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