A Dynamic Adaptive Subgroup-to-Subgroup Compatibility-Based Conflict Detection and Resolution Model for Multicriteria Large-Scale Group Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current societal demands and technological developments have resulted in the participation of a large number of experts in making decisions as a group. Conflicts are imminent in groups and conflict management is complex and necessary especially in a large group. However, there are few studies that quantitatively research the conflict detection and resolution in the large-group context, especially in the multicriteria large-group decision making (GDM) context. This article proposes a dynamic adaptive subgroup-to-subgroup conflict model to solve multicriteria large-scale GDM problems. A compatibility index is proposed based on two kinds of conflicts among experts: 1) cognitive conflict and 2) interest conflict. Then, the fuzzy c -means clustering algorithm is used to classify experts into several subgroups. A subgroup-to-subgroup conflict detection method and a weight-determination approach are developed based on the clustering results. Afterward, a conflict resolution model, which can dynamically generate feedback suggestion, is introduced. Finally, an illustrative example is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed model.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".