Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) to Select the Most Sustainable Power-Generating Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the growing importance of sustainability and regulatory pressures, companies are increasingly engaging in sustainable projects to mitigate environmental and social harm. Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate sustainability considerations during selecting construction projects in the feasibility phase. This study aims to identify a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and sub-criteria to help the owners of power-generating plants to select the most sustainable technology for their new projects. Sixteen criteria are identified and categorized under the pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental, plus the technical category. To illustrate practical application, a case study demonstrates the use of these essential sustainability criteria through a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for power-generating technology ranking. The results suggest that when stakeholders’ perspectives are weighted approximately equally, considering all sustainability pillars, natural gas with carbon capture is favored for sustainability. A three-scenario sensitivity analysis was performed involving expert opinions from one of the largest power-generating companies in Canada. This integrated generic model can be utilized by industry experts to apply multi-dimensional rational decision-making techniques to solve the complex problem of selecting the most sustainable alternative in construction projects.
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 | 0.013 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".