MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155493775 · doi:10.1155/2021/5535925

A Multistage Dynamic Emergency Decision-Making Method considering the Satisfaction under Uncertainty Information

2021· article· en· W3155493775 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChongqing Jiaotong University
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Process (computing)Operations researchComputer scienceDynamic programmingInterval (graph theory)Key (lock)Dynamic decision-makingDecision-makingFuzzy logicFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency decision-making (EDM) is of paramount importance, especially when the emergency occurs. The evolution nature of the emergency, such as multistage, uncertainty, dynamic, and information updating, has been playing a key role in the dynamic emergency decision-making process. However, most existing studies ignored the aforementioned nature. Our approach accounts for the dynamics inherent to a real emergency decision-making process and presents a multistage dynamic emergency decision-making (MSDEDM) procedure of a dynamic programming model based on decision-makers’ psychological reference satisfactory degree. Firstly, interval-valued trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IVTrIFNs) are used to depict the relevant fuzziness and uncertainty of information. Secondly, by considering the dynamic evolution process of emergency and the decision-makers’ psychological reference expectation effect, the principle of MSDEDM approach is presented. Based on the analysis, the dynamic model on the new psychological reference satisfactory parameter formula is presented to obtain the optimal satisfaction and weight of each stage. Then, the value utility function based on the DMs’ risk attitude is proposed to obtain the comprehensive value of each emergency alternative for each stage and achieve the ranking results of each stage. Furthermore, a case study involving the transportation emergency decision-making problem demonstrates that the proposed method can achieve selection of the optimal alternatives for each stage, as well as adjustment of the alternatives for neighbouring stages. Finally, the comparative analysis and sensitivity analysis for the results are used to further verify the feasibility and practicability of the proposed method.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207