Complex pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators based on confidence levels and their applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most important influence of this assessment is to analyze some new operational laws based on confidential levels (CLs) for complex Pythagorean fuzzy (CPF) settings. Moreover, to demonstrate the closeness between finite numbers of alternatives, the conception of confidence CPF weighted averaging (CCPFWA), confidence CPF ordered weighted averaging (CCPFOWA), confidence CPF weighted geometric (CCPFWG), and confidence CPF ordered weighted geometric (CCPFOWG) operators are invented. Several significant features of the invented works are also diagnosed. Moreover, to investigate the beneficial optimal from a large number of alternatives, a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) analysis is analyzed based on CPF data. A lot of examples are demonstrated based on invented works to evaluate the supremacy and ability of the initiated works. For massive convenience, the sensitivity analysis and merits of the identified works are also explored with the help of comparative analysis and they're graphical shown.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it