Similarity measures for Fermatean fuzzy sets and its applications in group decision-making
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 intention of this paper is to propose some similarity measures between Fermatean fuzzy sets (FFSs). Firstly, we propose some score based similarity measures for finding similarity measures of FFSs and also propose score based cosine similarity measures between FFSs. Furthermore, we introduce three newly scored functions for effective uses of Fermatean fuzzy sets and discuss some relevant properties of cosine similarity measure. Fermatean fuzzy sets introduced by Senapati and Yager can manipulate uncertain information more easily in the process of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and group decision making. Here, we investigate score based similarity measures of Fermatean fuzzy sets and scout the uses of FFSs in pattern recognition. Based on different types of similarity measures a pattern recognition problem viz. personnel appointment is presented to describe the use of FFSs and its similarity measure as well as scores. The counterfeit results show that the proposed method is more malleable than the existing method(s). Finally, concluding remarks and the scope of future research of the proposed approach are given.
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 | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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