MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393951281 · doi:10.3390/biomimetics9040208

A Parameter Reduction-Based Decision-Making Method with Interval-Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets for the Selection of Bionic Thin-Wall Structures

2024· article· en· W4393951281 on OpenAlexaff
Honghao Zhang, Lingyu Wang, Danqi Wang, Zhongwei Huang, Dongtao Yu, Yong Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomimetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicFuzzy and Soft Set Theory
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Reduction (mathematics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Interval (graph theory)Computer scienceMatching (statistics)Rough setSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bio-inspired thin-wall structures with excellent mechanical properties, high-energy absorption capabilities, and a desirable lightweight level have been extensively applied to the passive safety protection of transportation and aerospace. Collaboration matching and the selection of optional structures with different bionic principles considering the multiple attribute evaluation index and engineering preference information have become an urgent problem. This paper proposes a parameter reduction-based indifference threshold-based attribute ratio analysis method under an interval-valued neutrosophic soft set (IVNS-SOFT) to obtain the weight vector of an evaluation indicator system for the selection of bionic thin-wall structures, which can avoid the problem of an inadequate subjective evaluation and reduce redundant parameters. An IVNS-SOFT-based multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC) method is proposed to obtain an optimal alternative, which can quantify uncertainty explicitly and handle the uncertain and inconsistent information prevalent in the expert system. Subsequently, an application of five bio-inspired thin-wall structures is applied to demonstrate that this proposed method is valid and practical. Comparative analysis, sensitivity analysis, and discussion are conducted in this research. The results show that this study provides an effective tool for the selection of bionic thin-wall structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomimeticsSame topicFuzzy and Soft Set TheoryFrench-language works237,207