A fuzzy group decision-making model for Water Distribution Network rehabilitation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group Decision-Making (GDM), though could aid water companies in determining the Pipeline Rehabilitation Plans (PRPs) in any network size, can impose uncertainties on PRPs due to the different viewpoints of decision-makers. Thus, it should be determined when GDM could be ignored or should be considered for PRPs. To address this problem, a Fuzzy GDM model was developed to assess 10 scenarios of GDM in combination with 7 scenarios of network size. Hence, by participating experienced experts in different countries, PRPs were determined for various network sizes in a case study. The results indicated that the GDM could be ignored for PRPs with fewer pipes, whereas, should be considered for PRPs with more pipes. In addition, it was found that the groups with more decision-makers had less effect on pipes prioritization, but more influence on determining rehabilitation strategies. While, in groups with fewer decision-makers, the GDM could have the reverse effect.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it