MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900639259 · doi:10.1080/0305215x.2018.1536753

Inexact rough-interval type-2 fuzzy stochastic optimization model supporting municipal solid waste management under uncertainty

2018· article· en· W2900639259 on OpenAlexaff
Li Wang, Lei Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Optimization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersHenan UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Fujian ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInterval (graph theory)Municipal solid wasteFuzzy logicType (biology)Mathematical optimizationSolid waste managementMathematicsComputer scienceWaste managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, an inexact rough-interval type-2 fuzzy stochastic linear programming (IRIT2FSLP) approach is developed for addressing uncertainties presented as rough-interval, type-2 fuzzy and random variables. The proposed method is applied to the case of a long-term municipal solid waste management system. The IRIT2FSLP approach is an extension of the inexact interval linear programming for handling nonlinear stochastic optimization problems where rough-interval and type-2 fuzzy parameters are integrated into a general framework. The results indicate that IRIT2FSLP normally leads to rough-interval solutions. Comparisons of the proposed model with scenarios without rough-interval and type-2 fuzzy parameters are also conducted. The results indicate the significant impact of dual-uncertain information on the system, which implies the reliability of IRIT2FSLP in handling waste flow allocation.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering OptimizationSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207