A fuzzy rough copula Bayesian network model for solving complex hospital service quality assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare tends to be one of the most complicated sectors, and hospitals exist at the core of healthcare activities. One of the most significant elements in hospitals is service quality level. Moreover, the dependency between factors, dynamic features, as well as objective and subjective uncertainties involved endure challenges to modern decision-making problems. Thus, in this paper, a decision-making approach is developed for hospital service quality assessment, using a Bayesian copula network based on a fuzzy rough set within neighborhood operators as a basis of that to deal with dynamic features as well as objective uncertainties. In the copula Bayesian network model, the Bayesian Network is utilized to illustrate the interrelationships between different factors graphically, while Copula is engaged in obtaining the joint probability distribution. Fuzzy rough set theory within neighborhood operators is employed for the subjective treatment of evidence from decision makers. The efficiency and practicality of the designed method are validated by an analysis of real hospital service quality in Iran. A novel framework for ranking a group of alternatives with consideration of different criteria is proposed by the combination of the Copula Bayesian Network and the extended fuzzy rough set technique. The subjective uncertainty of decision makers' opinions is dealt with in a novel extension of fuzzy Rough set theory. The results highlighted that the proposed method has merits in reducing uncertainty and assessing the dependency between factors of complicated decision-making problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".