A q-rung orthopair fuzzy decision-making framework considering experts trust relationships and psychological behavior: An application to green supplier selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selection of an optimal supplier is a critical and open challenge in supply chain management. While experts' assessments significantly influence the supplier selection process, their subjective interactions can introduce unpredictable uncertainty. Existing methods have limitations in effectively representing and handling this uncertainty. The paper aims to address these challenges by proposing a novel approach that leverages q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets (q-ROFSs). The novelty of the proposed approach lies in its ability to accurately capture experts' preferences through the use of q-ROFSs, which offer membership and non-membership degrees, providing a broader expression space compared to conventional fuzzy sets. Additionally, it incorporates social network analysis (SNA) to effectively consider the trust relationships among experts. The proposed approach is divided into three stages. The first stage, presents a novel method to determine experts' weights by combining SNA, the Bayesian formula, and the maximum entropy principle. This approach allows for a more precise representation of varying levels of expertise and influence among experts, addressing the uncertainty arising from subjective interactions. The second stage introduces a hybrid weight determination method to determine criteria weights within the context of q-ROFSs. Entropy plays a crucial role in capturing fuzziness and uncertainty in q-ROFSs, while the projection measure simultaneously provides information about the distance and angle between alternatives. By employing both objective weights estimated using entropy and normalized projection measure and subjective weights derived using an aggregation operator and a score function, the presented approach achieves a comprehensive assessment of criteria importance. To incorporate both subjective and objective weights effectively, game theory is applied which allows us to align decision-making with both quantitative and qualitative aspects, making the method more versatile and applicable. The third stage redefines the traditional Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method using Bonferroni mean operators which captures interrelationships among arguments to be aggregated. Furthermore, in recognition of the importance of an expert risk preferences and psychological behaviors, we apply regret theory, ensuring that the chosen solutions align more effectively with their underlying preferences and aspirations. The applicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach are demonstrated through a numerical example of green supplier selection. The comparative analysis illustrates the practicality and real-world relevance while the sensitivity analysis, confirms the stability and robustness of the proposed approach.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".