A Granular Computing-Driving Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Method for Supporting Large-Scale Group Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the conditions that: 1) same linguistic term means different things for different people; 2) flexible semantics cannot be represented by original linguistic term; and 3) some semantics given by decision makers are possible to be changed during the consistency improving process, we bring some flexibility and personality into hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference matrix structures by allowing the linguistic preference matrices to be granular rather than numeric, providing a new characterization of linguistic preference matrices. Inspired by the thought of granular computing, this article proposes a new hesitant fuzzy linguistic method to deal with issues when a lot of decision makers provide hesitant and uncertain preference information in the decision-making process. First, we design a multiplicative consistency index and calculate its thresholds corresponding to different dimensions of preference matrix by the Monte Carlo experiment. Then, we construct a hesitant fuzzy linguistic model with granularity level, so as to recharacterize original assessment information and improve the consistency of preference matrices as far as possible. Considering the features of some large-scale group decision-making situation, where the decision makers have little opportunity to take part in multiple consensus reaching processes, hesitant fuzzy linguistic fuzzy$C$-means clustering algorithm is developed to integrate the assessment information given by decision makers. Finally, the final decision-making results are derived. An illustrative example of assessing psychological situation of some COVID-19 infected persons clarifies the reasonability of the proposed method. Finally, we complete some comparative studies and simulation experiments to demonstrate the method’s validity and advantages.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".