Cloud model-based best-worst method for group decision making under uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to enhance computational and analytical aspects of multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) under uncertainty. For this, we use the best-worst method (BWM) and cloud models to develop a more reliable MCGDM algorithm including three stages: first, collecting data through the BWM reference pairwise comparison; second, extracting interval-weights using the BWM bi-level optimisation models and aggregating different opinions via cloud models; and third, using the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to prioritise alternatives. We have also investigated the effectiveness of the proposed approach in a real-life problem of online learning platform selection within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. The experiment results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method over the Bayesian BWM in terms of computational time by 96%. Moreover, the proposed approach outperforms BWM and Bayesian BWM techniques by 33% and 25%, respectively, in terms of conformity to the decision-makers’ intuitive judgments. Our findings also bring important practical implications. Application of the proposed method led to robustness against the number of decision-makers and significantly increased time efficiency in group decision-making. Besides, the computations with the lower inconsistency enhanced the effectiveness of prioritisation in group decision-making.
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 | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".