Optimal selection of an electric power wheelchair using an integrated COPRAS and EDAS approach based on Entropy weighting technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision to purchase the best available electric power wheelchair (EPWC) for a person with a disability in a low-resource context is very stressful, whether it is based on financial circumstances or the availability of medical solutions. The study's objective is to assess the EPWC options available on the market, focused on a set of conflicting criteria. In this research, three multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches are used to make decisions. ENTROPY method for weightage calculation of various parameters, COPRAS and EDAS methods for evaluating and ranking alternatives are applied. Both COPRAS and EDAS are applied separately for ranking of selected wheelchair models, and to check the robustness of the applied method, sensitivity analysis on cost criterion is carried out. The result shows that for both methods, EPWC-1 is the top priority model to buy, whereas EPWC-7 is the worst model for COPRAS, and EPWC-10 is the worst model for EDAS among the ten 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".