MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014409699 · doi:10.1080/1331677x.2020.1736117

Pythagorean fuzzy combinative distance-based assessment with pure linguistic information and its application to financial strategies of multi-national companies

2020· article· en· W3014409699 on OpenAlexafffund
Jinming Zhou, Kevin Li, Tomas Baležentis, Dalia Štreimikienė

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPythagorean theoremFuzzy logicLinguisticsComputer scienceBusinessArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the issue of selecting Financial Strategies in Multi-National companies (F.S.M.). The F.S.M. typically has to consider multiple factors involving multiple stakeholders and, hence, can be handled by applying an appropriate Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making (M.C.G.D.M.) approach. To address this issue, we develop an M.C.G.D.M. framework to tackle the F.S.M. problem. To handle inherent uncertainty in business decisions as reflected by linguistic reasoning, we embark on constructing a Linguistic Pythagorean Fuzzy (L.P.F.) M.C.G.D.M. framework that is capable of tackling both uncertain decision information and linguistic variables. The proposed approach extends the combinative distance-based assessment (C.O.D.A.S.) method into the L.P.F. environment, and processes decision input expressed as Pythagorean fuzzy sets (P.F.S.) and pure linguistic variables (rather than converting linguistic information into fuzzy numbers). The developed L.P.F.-C.O.D.A.S. technique aggregates the L.P.F. information and is applied to the F.S.M. problem with uncertain linguistic information. A comparative analysis is carried out to compare the results obtained from the proposed L.P.F.-C.O.D.A.S. approach with those from other extensions of C.O.D.A.S. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to check the impact of changes in a distance threshold parameter on the ranking results.

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)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic Research-Ekonomska IstraživanjaSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207