MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005519960 · doi:10.22111/ijfs.2020.5106

Negations and aggregation operators based on a new hesitant fuzzy partial ordering

2020· article· en· W3005519960 on OpenAlexaff
Mingfei Ye, Jian Jin, Yueqiang Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueIranian journal of fuzzy systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnit intervalMathematicsNegationCombinatoricsCommutative propertyBinary operationDiscrete mathematicsFuzzy logicNorm (philosophy)Bar (unit)Equivalence (formal languages)Fuzzy setComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a new hesitant fuzzy partial ordering proposed by Garmendia et al.~cite{GaCa:Pohfs}, in this paper a fuzzy disjunction ${D}$ on the set ${H}$ of finite and nonempty subsets of the unit interval and a t-conorm ${S}$ on the set $bar{{B}}$ of equivalence class on the set of finite bags of unit interval based on this partial ordering are introduced respectively. Then, hesitant fuzzy negations $N_n$ on ${H}$ and $mu_n$ on $bar{{B}}$ are proposed. Particularly, their De Morgan's laws are investigated with respect to binary operations ${C}$  and ${D}$ on ${H}$, as well as ${T}$  and {S} on $bar{{B}}$ respectively, where ${C}$ is a commutative fuzzy conjunction on $({H},leq_H)$ and ${T}$ is a t-norm on $(bar{{B}},leq_B)$. Finally, the new hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators are presented on ${H}$ and $bar{{B}}$ and their more general forms are given. Moreover, the validity of the aggregation operations is illustrated by a numerical example on decision making.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIranian journal of fuzzy systemsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207