MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383345345 · doi:10.30564/jmser.v6i2.5634

Understanding Applications and Best Practices of DEMATEL: A Method for Prioritizing Key Factors in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

2023· article· en· W4383345345 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Science & Engineering research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterdependenceComputer scienceKey (lock)Process (computing)Management scienceProcess managementRisk analysis (engineering)Influence diagramOrder (exchange)Supply chainKnowledge managementDecision treeArtificial intelligenceEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method is a powerful tool for understanding and visualizing the causal relationships among factors in complex decision-making problems. The method uses diagrams and matrixes to map out the causal relationships and interdependencies among factors, allowing decision-makers to identify key drivers and potential solutions to the problem. DEMATEL has a wide range of application areas, including supply chain management, environmental planning, healthcare, finance, and engineering, among others. The DEMATEL method is a valuable tool for decision-makers who need to understand the complex causal relationships among factors in order to make informed decisions. The method provides a structured approach for analyzing and prioritizing factors and for identifying potential solutions to complex problems. This paper describes the main features of this method, its application areas as well as the main process steps in the DEMATEL method.

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 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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.643
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.050 · 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