<scp>TSMAA‐TRI</scp>: A temporal multi‐criteria sorting approach under uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, the Quebec government has highlighted the importance of making decisions that are both sustainable and robust under climate change uncertainties. This paper aims to answer the following question: How to sort the alternatives according to their degree of sustainability achievement while evaluations are uncertain and temporal? The general objective of the paper is to propose a first temporal sorting method under stochastic uncertainty. The proposed method, called TSMAA‐Tri, will assign each alternative to a predefined category based on a generalization of SMAA‐Tri to a temporal context (multi‐period evaluation of alternatives) where alternative evaluations are stochastic. The method starts performing Monte Carlo simulations to generate stochastic evaluation values. Each simulation (scenario of uncertainty) will generate a specific value for each criterion using the corresponding probability distribution. Then, aggregation consists in applying SMAA Tri at each period and performing a triple aggregation: (a) uncertainty aggregation; (b) multi‐criteria aggregation; and (c) temporal aggregation. Multi‐criteria aggregation consists in applying the SMAA‐TRI method at each period. Then, two ways of temporal aggregation are proposed, based either on acceptability index or on outranking index of boundary profile. The proposed method is illustrated for sustainable forest management to show its applicability.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".