MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321241825 · doi:10.30564/jmser.v6i1.5400

Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW) as a MultiAttribute Decision-Making Technique: A Step-by-Step Guide

2023· article· en· W4321241825 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Taherdoost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Science & Engineering research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingSimple (philosophy)Ranking (information retrieval)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Two stepEnergy (signal processing)Machine learningMathematicsStatisticsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The simple additive weighting (SAW) method is one of the oldest and most widely used decision-making methods. It has a simple process that can be utilized in different subject areas such as engineering, environmental sciences, and energy. The main concepts of the SAW method are introduced in this paper and then a step-by-step guide to using SAW technique for decision-making and ranking purposes in multi-attribute cases is presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.406 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations55
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management Science & Engineering researchSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207