MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362471920 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22399-3

Development of neutrosophic cubic hesitant fuzzy exponential aggregation operators with application in environmental protection problems

2023· article· en· W4362471920 on OpenAlexaff
Ateeq Ur Rehman, Muhammad Gulistan, Mumtaz Ali, Mohammed M. Ali Al-Shamiri, Shahab Abdulla

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKing Khalid University
KeywordsWeightingFuzzy logicComputer scienceExponential functionSet (abstract data type)Fuzzy setMathematical optimizationDecision matrixData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The population growth and urbanization has caused an exponential increase in waste material. The proper disposal of waste is a challenging problem nowadays. The proper disposal site selection with typical sets and operators may not yield fruitful results. To handle such problems, the exponential aggregation operators based on neutrosophic cubic hesitant fuzzy sets are proposed. For appropriate decisions in a decision-making problem, it is important to have a handy environment and aggregation operators. Many multi attribute decision making methods often ignore the uncertainty and hence yields the results which are not reliable. The neutrosophic cubic hesitant fuzzy set can efficiently handle the complex information in a decision-making problem, as it combines the advantages of neutrosophic cubic set and hesitant fuzzy set. In this paper first we establish exponential operational laws in neutrosophic cubic hesitant fuzzy sets, in which the exponents are neutrosophic cubic hesitant fuzzy numbers and bases are positive real numbers. In order to use neutrosophic cubic hesitant fuzzy sets in decision making, we are developing exponential aggregation operators and investigate their properties in the current study. In many multi expert decision-making methods there are different decision matrices but same weighting vector for attributes. The results of a multi expert decision-making problem becomes more reliable if every decision expert has its own decision matrix along with his own weighting vector for attributes. In this study, we are developing multi expert decision-making method that uses different weights for an attribute corresponding to different experts. At the end we present two applications of exponential aggregation operators in environmental protection multi attribute 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207