MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381510304 · doi:10.21272/jes.2023.10(1).e1

Optimization of Graphene Oxide’s Characteristics with TOPSIS Using an Automated Decision-Making Process

2023· article· en· W4381510304 on OpenAlexaff
Taraneh Javanbakht

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGraphene and Nanomaterials Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISGrapheneComputer scienceNanomaterialsMultiple-criteria decision analysisProcess (computing)Materials scienceNanotechnologyOperations researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study focuses on a new application of TOPSIS to predict and optimize graphene oxide’s characteristics. Although this carbon-based material has been investigated previously, its optimization with this method using an automated decision-making process has not been performed yet. The major problem in the design and analysis of this nanomaterial is the lack of information on comparing its characteristics, which has led to the use of diverse methods that have not been appropriately compared. Moreover, their advantages and inconveniences could be investigated better once this investigation provides information on optimizing its candidates. In the current research work, a novel automated decision-making process was used with the TOPSIS algorithm using the Łukasiewicz disjunction, which helped detect the confusion of properties and determine its impact on the rank of candidates. Several characteristics of graphene oxide, such as its antibiofilm activity, hemocompatibility, activity with ferrous ions in hydrogen peroxide, rheological properties, and the cost of its preparation, have been considered in its analysis with TOPSIS. The results of this study revealed that the consideration of the criteria of this nanomaterial as profit or cost criteria would impact the distances of candidates from the alternatives. Moreover, the ranks of the candidates changed when the rheological properties were considered differently in the data analysis. This investigation can help improve the use of this nanomaterial in academic and industrial investigations.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering SciencesSame topicGraphene and Nanomaterials ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207