Development of a genetic algorithm-based graph model for conflict resolution for optimizing resolutions in environmental conflicts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) is a robust tool for resolving disagreements among parties with contradictory interests in a potential conflict. In GMCR, decision-makers (DMs) and their preferences are determined. The DMs are defined as people, parties, or groups having the authority to make decisions and the power to get these decisions approved. This definition excludes some potential stakeholders with no ability to make and exert decisions, like the natural environment. Therefore, this study aims to find an impartial viewpoint representing the natural environment's interests. A new GMCR based on genetic algorithm (GA) optimization is proposed to modify and optimize the final resolution of the GMCR regarding natural environment benefits. Having been applied to a real-world case study, this methodology showed competence in satisfying the fundamental interests of the natural environment to an acceptable extent. This case study is about an endangered seasonal lake, where there is contention between the governmental and agricultural sectors. The results revealed that the disagreement between two conflicting groups could be resolved by modifying the current agreement to consider both groups' demands. Finally, GA, incorporated in GMCR, proved to be a robust optimization technique in complex environmental conflicts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it