A Novel Automated Decision-Making Process for Analysisof Ions and Organic Materials in Drinking Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper applies a novel automated decision-making process with TOPSIS to analyze ions and organic materials in drinking water. The hypothesis was that the modified TOPSIS algorithm with the Łukasiewicz fuzzy disjunction would be appropriate to optimize the drinking water samples. The maximum output values were set to one to apply the fuzzy disjunction. The concentrations of ions and organic materials in the drinking water samples were considered from the values for naturally occurring chemicals that would be of health significance. Materials with positive effects on the body were considered profit criteria, whereas other ones with negative impacts on human health were considered cost criteria. The analysis of samples with unmodified TOPSIS showed that profit criteria having high concentrations and cost criteria having low concentrations had the dominant effects on the candidates’ ranking. The modified TOPSIS showed that the candidates’ ranking in the second analysis series was the same as in the first. However, the value of 1.0 for the fourth candidate’s concentration of nitrite, which resulted from the fuzzy disjunction in the algorithm of the modified TOPSIS, was attributed to the confusion of the drinking water and undrinkable water categories. The optimization results for drinking water samples could be applied in science and engineering based on the concentrations of their ions and organic materials with the automated decision-making process for their distinction from undrinkable water.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".