Nearest solution to references method for multicriteria decision-making problems
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 MCDM problems, the decision maker is often ready to adopt the closest solution to the reference values in a choice or ranking problem. The reference values represent the desired results as established subjectively by the decision maker or determined through various scientific tools. In a criterion, the reference value could be the maximum value, the minimum value, or a specific value or range. Also, the acceptances degrees of ranges outside the reference may differ from each other in a criterion. Furthermore, measurements in a criterion may have been obtained with any of the nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales. For the decision problems, including qualitative criteria, the solution cannot be achieved without scaling of criteria with the existing MCDM methods. The purpose of this study is to propose the Nearest Solution to References (REF) Method, a novel reference-based MCDM method, for the solution of decision problems having mixed data structure where references can be determined for criteria.
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 | 0.024 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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