MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158266344 · doi:10.5220/0010439304520462

CC-separation Measure Applied in Business Group Decision Making

2021· article· en· W3158266344 on OpenAlexaff
Jonata Wieczynski, Giancarlo Lucca, Eduardo Nunes Borges, Graçaliz Pereira Dimuro, Rodolfo Lourenzutti, Humberto Bustince

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinisterio de Ciencia y TecnologíaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Separation (statistics)Group decision-makingGroup (periodic table)Computer scienceData miningMachine learningPsychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In business, one of the most important management functions is decision making The Group Modular Choquet Random TOPSIS (GMC-RTOPSIS) is a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method that can work with multiple heterogeneous data types. This method uses the Choquet integral to deal with the interaction between different criteria. The Choquet integral has been generalized and applied in various fields of study, such as imaging processing, brain-computer interface, and classification problems. By generalizing the so-called extended Choquet integral by copulas, the concept of CC-integrals has been introduced, presenting satisfactory results when used to aggregate the information in Fuzzy Rule-Based Classification Systems. Taking this into consideration, in this paper. we applied 11 different CC-integrals in the GMC-RTOPSIS. The results demonstrated that this approach has the advantage of allowing more flexibility and certainty in the choosing process by giving a higher separation between the first and second-ranked alternatives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207