Integrated Ranking Algorithm for Efficient 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
Decision making remains a prominent issue in all the problem domains. To make better decisions, multiple factors of the given problem need to be considered and evaluated. Multi-criteria decision-making methods have been used popularly for solving decision-making problems characterized by multiple factors. When multiple factors are considered, it is recommended to categorize the factors into the main criteria and sub-criteria. In this paper, GRAP-an integrated ranking algorithm has been developed by combining Grey Relational Analysis, Rank Sum, and Preference Ranking Organization Method Enrichment Evaluation methods (PROMETHEE) to solve decision-making problems. The weights of the sub-criteria are calculated using the Rank Sum method. Grey Relational Analysis method is used to convert the sub-criteria values into main criteria values in the form of evaluation scores of alternatives. The final ranking scores of the alternatives are obtained using the PROMETHEE method. A decision model is developed using the proposed GRAP algorithm and applied to the Job Profile selection case study. The developed decision model showed much better results compared to other MCDM approaches namely the Simple Additive Weight method, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS). Further, a sanity check has been carried out by comparing the results of the decision model with experts’ opinions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 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 it