Expertise-Structure and Risk-Appetite-Integrated Two-Tiered Collective Opinion Generation Framework for Large-Scale Group Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generation of collective preference assessments occupies a critical position in deriving accurate and reliable alternative rankings in the context of large-scale group decision making (LSGDM). In general, the collective opinion generation framework entails the following three phases, which are clustering analysis, weighting clusters, and preference aggregation. However, the clustering of experts has been frequently based on preference similarities among them without taking into account individual opinions in which knowledge elicitation plays a crucial role. The traditional collective opinion generation framework suffering from this drawback may result in unreliable decision outcomes. To this end, we propose an expertise-structure and risk-appetite-integrated two-tiered collective opinion generation framework to address this concern. The first tier of the two-tiered collective opinion generation framework divides the entire expert group into several subgroups based on individual expertise structures, which are extracted from hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (HFLTS)-based preference assessments, and it then weighs the resulting clusters in accordance with the overall expertise levels. The second-tier clusters the first-tier subgroups conditioned on the indicator of individual assessment similarities and gathers the generated subgroup preference constructs in the use of the risk appetite-oriented power average operator. In addition, the notion of proportional HFLTSs was introduced to manifest collective evaluations in second-tier subgroups to eliminate information loss and distortion. The effectiveness and flexibility of the proposed collective opinion generation algorithm are eventually illustrated by a case study and a comparison analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".