MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120785167 · doi:10.1002/mcda.1730

A disaggregation approach for indirect preference elicitation in Electre <scp>TRI‐nC</scp>: Application and validation

2021· article· en· W3120785167 on OpenAlexafffund
Parisa Madhooshiarzanagh, Irène Abi‐Zeid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsELECTRESortingPairwise comparisonRobustness (evolution)PreferencePreference elicitationComputer scienceDecision makerCredibilityOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsMultiple-criteria decision analysisAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multicriteria sorting methods are often used in decision aiding contexts where the objective is to assign alternatives to predefined ordered categories. The Electre Tri family of sorting methods is based on pairwise comparisons of the alternatives with some, possibly fictional, alternatives that are either upper or lower limits of the categories (Electre Tri‐B), or one or more typical reference alternatives, that is, representative categories profiles (Electre Tri‐C, Tri‐nC). In this paper, we are interested in the Electre Tri‐nC method and in indirect preference elicitation based on partial information provided by the Decision Maker. We therefore propose, apply and evaluate a preference disaggregation method for learning criteria weights and the credibility threshold used in Electre Tri‐nC. The proposed disaggregation method is validated in an experiment using a climate classification problem for light tourism where 62,482 touristic locations are sorted into four categories. A robustness analysis of the method's performance using 150 learning sets is conducted and the results are presented and discussed.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multi-Criteria Decision AnalysisSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207