MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391262729 · doi:10.31181/dmame722024978

Analysis on the Hesitation and its Application to Decision Making

2024· article· en· W4391262729 on OpenAlexaff
Youpeng Yang, Sanghyuk Lee, Kyeong Soo Kim, Haolan Zhang, Xiaowei Huang, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Making Applications in Management and Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScoreFunction (biology)Monotonic functionMembership functionFlexibility (engineering)Metric (unit)PreferenceMathematicsProperty (philosophy)Degree (music)Computer scienceFuzzy logicMathematical optimizationData miningFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatisticsEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel score function based on the Poincaré metric is proposed and applied to a decision-making problem. Decision-making on Fuzzy Sets (FSs) has been considered due to the flexibility of the data, and it is applied to the decision-making. However, decisions with FSs are sometimes nondecisive even for different membership degrees. Hence, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFSs) data is applied to design a score function for the decision-making with the Poincaré metric. This function is supported by the profound information of IFSs; IFSs include hesitation degree together with membership and non-membership degree. Hence, IFS membership and non-membership degree are expressed as two-dimensional vectors satisfying the Poincaré metric for simplification. At the same time, the proposed approach addresses the hesitation information in the IFS data. Next, a score function is proposed, constructed and provided. The proposed score function has a strict monotonic property and addresses the preference without resorting to the accuracy function. The strict monotonic property guarantees the preference of all attributes. Additionally, the existing problem of score function design in IFSs is addressed: they return zero scores even with different meanings for the same membership and non-membership degree. The advantages of the proposed score function over existing ones are demonstrated through illustrative examples. From the calculation results, the proposed decision score function discriminates between all candidates. Hence, the proposed research provides a solid foundation for the hesitation analysis on the decision-making problem.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Making Applications in Management and EngineeringSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207