MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-Life Applications of New Type Spherical Fuzzy Sets and Its Extension Using Aggregation Operators

2024· article· en· W4401334472 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Palanikumar, Lakshmi Mohan, Masum Raj, Aiyared Iampan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsExtension (predicate logic)IdempotenceCommutative propertyEuclidean geometryFuzzy logicMonotonic functionHamming distanceSphericityMathematical optimizationAlgorithmApplied mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to present a novel approach to the multiple attribute decision-making problem (MADM) based on (l1, l2) spherical fuzzy sets (SFS). This is an extension of the SFS. As a result of this article, we will discuss the concept of spherical fuzzy weighted averaging (SFWA), spherical fuzzy weighted geometric (SFWG), generalized spherical fuzzy weighted averaging (GSFWA) and generalized spherical fuzzy weighted geometric (GSFWG). Here is a flowchart that shows how these operators are used in the algorithm we discussed. With the help of a numerical example, we illustrate the extended Euclidean and Hamming distance measures. Additionally, the SFN approach is characterized by idempotency, boundedness, commutativity, and monotonicity. These tools help you find the best option faster, simpler, and more conveniently. The result is a more precise conclusion and a more intimate relationship between (l1, l2). We compare some of the current models with those that have been proposed in order to demonstrate the dependability and utility of the models under investigation. The study also revealed fascinating and intriguing findings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207