Water allocation analysis of the Zhanghe River basin using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with incomplete fuzzy preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An incomplete fuzzy preference framework for the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is proposed to handle both complete and incomplete fuzzy preference information. Usually, decision makers’ (DMs’) fuzzy preferences are assumed to be complete fuzzy preference relations (FPRs). However, in real-life situations, due to lack of information or limited expertise in the problem domain, any DM’s preference may be an incomplete fuzzy preference relation (IFPR). An inherent advantage of the proposed framework for GMCR is that it can complete the IFPRs based on additive consistency, which is a special form of transitivity, a common property of preferences. After introducing the concepts of FPR, IFPR, and transitivity, we propose an algorithm to supplement IFPR, that is, to find an FPR that is a good approximation. To illustrate the usefulness of the incomplete fuzzy preference framework for GMCR, we demonstrate it using to a real-world conflict over water allocation that took place in the Zhanghe River basin of China.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".