Prioritizing risk events of a large hydroelectric project using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of hydroelectric plants along Amazon River tributaries is a solution to satisfy the energy demand in Brazil. However, these plants are subjected to multiple risk events because of the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of this region. In helping to address these escalating challenges, this paper presents a framework that assesses the risk events of service packs relevant to the plant. This framework presents a transparent approach for prioritizing risk events in large projects. The weights of importance of risk events are estimated using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Chang’s extent analysis method takes into consideration the vagueness and imprecision of subjective human judgments. The convergence of decisions is evaluated using two aggregation approaches, namely the maximum-minimum method based on an arithmetic mean and a geometric mean. The performances of the original and modified extent analysis methods are compared using group Euclidean distance and distance between weights metrics. The degree of similarity between the evaluation metrics is examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and average overlap approaches. Due to the inconsistency of the reported results, the final rankings of the aggregation approaches are determined using a new aggregated multiple criteria decision making method. The results indicate that the original extent analysis method using the maximum-minimum method (arithmetic mean) is the best aggregation method. A Santo Antonio hydroelectric plant in Brazil is used to demonstrate the application of the proposed framework.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".