Comparative Analysis of TOPSIS and TODIM for the Performance Evaluation of Foreign Players in Indian Premier League
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
Sports officials, players, and fans are concerned about overseas player rankings for the IPL auction. These rankings are becoming progressively essential to investors when premium leagues are commercialized. The decision‐makers of the Indian Premier League choose cricketers based on their own experience in sports and based on performance statistics on several criteria. This paper presents a scientific way to rank the players. Our research examines and contrasts different multicriteria decision‐making algorithms for ranking foreign players under various criteria to assess their performance and efficiency. The paper uses three MCDM algorithms, TOPSIS, TODIM, and NR‐TOPSIS, for foreign players ranking in the Indian Premier League. Our analysis is limited to the batsmen and bowlers only. We perform the analysis using Python language, a popular high‐level programming language. Finally, we perform a sensitivity analysis to determine the stability of each method when the weights of the criterion or the value of a parameter was changed. Our analysis exhibits the superiority of TODIM over TOPSIS and NR‐TOPSIS.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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