Integrated Spherical Decision-Making Model for Managing Climate Change Risks in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision-makers, researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders often struggle with selecting and prioritizing strategies to manage climate change risks. While recent research extensively explores this issue, the emphasis has largely been on regions other than Africa. This is significant, considering Africa’s anticipated exposure to various and severe impacts of climate change. This study applied a two-stage model that integrates the Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) methods within a unique framework under the influence of spherical fuzzy (SF) conditions. In the initial stage, SF-SWARA determines the relative importance of the criteria, while the subsequent stage involves the SF-WASPAS method to rank the strategies. While the most critical challenges are limited access to finance and inadequacies in climate data, scenarios, and impact models, the solution to be considered is the promotion of a well-coordinated capacity-building programme. Furthermore, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis was conducted to validate the applicability of the proposed model. This research not only identifies and explains the challenges associated with climate change risks management in the African context but also significantly contributes to the body of knowledge by outlining and prioritizing the strategies required to address these challenges.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".