Integrating Continual Personalized Individual Semantics Learning in Consensus Reaching in Linguistic Group Decision Making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In computing with words, it has been stressed that words mean different things for different people, which entails that decision makers (DMs) have personalized individual semantics (PISs) attached to linguistic expressions in linguistic group decision making (GDM). In particular, the PISs of DMs are not fixed, and they will be changing during the consensus building process, which indicates the necessary of continual PIS learning. Therefore, in this article, we propose a continual PIS-learning-based consensus approach in linguistic GDM. Specifically, a continual PIS learning model with the consistency-driven methodology is proposed to update the PISs taking into account all the linguistic preference data given by DMs during the consensus process. Then, the consensus measurement and feedback recommendation based on PIS are developed to detect the consensus process. Finally, numerical examples and simulation analysis are presented to illustrate and justify the use of the continual PIS-learning-based consensus approach.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it