MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386956822 · doi:10.5206/mase/16636

Application of multi-valued rough neutrosophic set and matrix in multi-criteria decision-making

2023· article· en· W4386956822 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics in Applied Sciences and Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRough setDominance-based rough set approachMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Indeterminacy (philosophy)Matrix (chemical analysis)Fuzzy setComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceData miningFuzzy logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rough set concept is a methodology of information processing for relational databases. It is a unique uncertainty mathematics topic closely connected to fuzzy set theory. When the rough set is combined with neutrosophic set theory, an effective tool for working with indeterminacy arises. In this study, we defined a multi-valued rough neutrosophic set and a multi-valued rough neutrosophic matrix. Using separation measures, we introduced a new approach for a multi-valued neutrosophic with a rough structure. We consider the problem of determining the condition of dengue-affected patients in a specific hospital. Using this method, we create a multi-valued rough neutrosophic decision matrix that clearly displays the relationship between patient conditions and symptoms. We can determine which one has a serious condition by solving this problem and presenting it on the graph.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.276 · 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