A novel performance evaluation technique based on integrated weighting approach: A case study in the field of sport management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a fact accepted by everybody that football is the most popular sport around the world. The result of a derby match may be very important for millions of people. Even the time seems to stop on a match day for so many people. Show and entertainment are the most important aspects of football. If soccer players have a high performance, a match may provide pleasure and excitement to audiences. Briefly, the performance and quality of soccer players are the key factors, which draw audiences. Goalkeepers are also one of the important components of football like other players playing different positions such as strikers, mid-fielders, and defenders. Moreover, a goalkeeper can affect the result of a match positively or negatively. Therefore, with the help of a mathematical approach as the methodological framework, it can be seen that the examination of the performance of goalkeepers can be beneficial for decision-makers performing in the fields of sport and the future studies. The current paper proposes an improved integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate the selection of goalkeepers; and this model can be applied for goalkeeper’s performance analysis. The proposed model combines the weights of criteria calculated with the help of both the CRITIC and the PSI techniques by applying the weight aggregation operator. It also ranks the decision alternatives by implementing the WASPAS technique based on the final criteria weights obtained by using the weight aggregation operator. In addition, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis consisting of three stages was performed to verify the validation of the suggested hybrid model. It has been observed that A11 has remained the best option for all scenarios. As a result, the results of the sensitivity analysis prove that the proposed hybrid MCDM technique is a very useful, strong and applicable approach. Also, the results obtained by applying the proposed model are accurate, realistic, and reasonable according to the results of the validation test.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".