MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206244976 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2021.11.002

Comparing best-worst method and full consistency method in a fuzzy environment

2022· article· en· W4206244976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arash Haqbin

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple-criteria decision analysisPairwise comparisonConsistency (knowledge bases)Fuzzy logicComputer scienceOperations researchMathematical optimizationMathematicsManagement scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) is one the most important branches of decision theory. Due to the fact that MCDM methods have the utmost significance in management, scholars try to develop more MCDM methods. Since calculating the weights of criteria is an important step in any MCDM method, increasing the accuracy of weight calculating methods can highly affect these methods. This accuracy can be improved by less pairwise comparison between criteria. To this end, the present study seeks to make a comparison between two new weight calculating techniques, namely BWM and FUCOM in a fuzzy environment using a real-world case study Results of this study shows that FUCOM-F provides more reliable results compared to FBWM since its consistency is less than FBWM by a great amount.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207