MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366490164 · doi:10.1111/poms.14018

A machine learning approach to deal with ambiguity in the humanitarian decision‐making

2023· article· en· W4366490164 on OpenAlexaff
Emilia Graß, Janosch Ortmann, Burcu Balcik, Walter Rei

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityComputer scienceOperations researchCluster analysisHumanitarian aidLinear programmingManagement scienceMachine learningEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major challenges for humanitarian organizations in response planning is dealing with the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty in disaster situations. The available information that comes from different sources in postdisaster settings may involve missing elements and inconsistencies, which can hamper effective humanitarian decision‐making. In this paper, we propose a new methodological framework based on graph clustering and stochastic optimization to support humanitarian decision‐makers in analyzing the implications of divergent estimates from multiple data sources on final decisions and efficiently integrating these estimates into decision‐making. To the best of our knowledge, the integration of ambiguous information into decision‐making by combining a cluster machine learning method with stochastic optimization has not been done before. We illustrate the proposed approach on a realistic case study that focuses on locating shelters to serve internally displaced people (IDP) in a conflict setting, specifically, the Syrian civil war. We use the needs assessment data from two different reliable sources to estimate the shelter needs in Idleb, a district of Syria. The analysis of data provided by two assessment sources has indicated a high degree of ambiguity due to inconsistent estimates. We apply the proposed methodology to integrate divergent estimates in making shelter location decisions. The results highlight that our methodology leads to higher satisfaction of demand for shelters than other approaches such as a classical stochastic programming model. Moreover, we show that our solution integrates information coming from both sources more efficiently thereby hedging against the ambiguity more effectively. With the newly proposed methodology, the decision‐maker is able to analyze the degree of ambiguity in the data and the degree of consensus between different data sources to ultimately make better decisions for delivering humanitarian aid.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction and Operations ManagementSame topicFacility Location and Emergency ManagementFrench-language works237,207