A normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy linguistic projection‐based multiattributive border approximation area comparison method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a useful information representation tool, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (HFLTS) allows decision makers (DMs) to express their cognitive preferences in terms of several ordered and continuous linguistic terms. Considering the fact that much valuable information related to the cognitive behavior of DMs is hidden in the original evaluation information, this paper studies how to comprehensively mine uncertain information from original hesitant fuzzy linguistic evaluation information given by DMs. To address this objective, we present a new representation tool, normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (NWHFLTS), which not only retains the original evaluation information, but also delivers and quantifies potential uncertain information, and can also help DMs express their evaluation information in a more complete manner. First, we develop the basic operations, score function, and comparison rule of NWHFLTS based on linguistic scale functions (LSFs), and propose the projection measure, the normal projection measure, and the normalized projection-based distance measure to describe the degree of deviation between two NWHFLTSs. Furthermore, for the case when the attribute weight is completely unknown, we combine the multiattributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC) method and develop a new method called as normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy linguistic projection-based MABAC to solve the multiattribute decision-making problems where attribute values are expressed in the form of NWHFLTS. Finally, through a practical example of marine ecological security situation, the specific calculation steps of this method are exemplified, the feasibility and advancement of the proposed method are demonstrated via a comprehensive comparative study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".