Aggregating the results of benevolent and aggressive models by the CRITIC method for ranking of decision-making units: A case study on seven biomass fuel briquettes generated from agricultural waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ranking of decision-making units (DMUs) is one of the main issues in data envelopment analysis (DEA). Hence, many different ranking models have been proposed. However, each of these ranking models may produce different ranking results for similar problems. Therefore, it is wise to try different ranking models and aggregate the results of each ranking model that provides more reliable results in solving the ranking problems. In this paper, a novel ranking method (Aggregating the results of aggressive and benevolent models) based on the CRITIC method is proposed. To prove the applicability of the proposed ranking method, it is examined in three numerical examples, six nursing homes, fourteen international passenger airlines and seven biomass materials for processing into fuel briquettes. First, benevolent and aggressive models were used to calculate the efficiency rating for each DMU. As a result, the decision matrix was generated. In the decision matrix, the results of benevolent and aggressive models were viewed as criteria and DMUs were viewed as alternatives. Then, the weights of each criterion were generated by the CRITIC method. Finally, each DMU was ranked. In a comparative analysis, the proposed method can lead to achieving a more reliable decision than the method which is based on a stand-alone method.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".