A Relative Projection-Based Multiattribute Group Decision-Making Model With Noncooperative Behavior Management and Application to NEV Supplier Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports a novel consensus model where a group of internal and external experts evaluate alternatives under multiple attributes and provide mutual evaluations. First, different from previous studies, the cognitive and interest conflicts of internal and external experts are considered simultaneously. But interest conflict is emphasized for internal experts, and cognitive conflict is mainly considered for external experts. Second, we explore the categorization and management methods of noncooperative behaviors (NCBs) of experts. The relative projection-based indexes are proposed for the first time to measure the degrees of cognitive and interest conflicts by using multiattribute preference matrices (MAPMs) and the weight vectors of attributes. A group of experts are divided into three categories and the corresponding management strategies are developed. Third, we investigate the consensus mechanism among experts with cognitive and interest conflicts. For reaching an acceptable consensus level, an adjustment process is proposed to revise some local entries in MAPMs and mutual evaluation matrix (MEM). A penalty mechanism is further established to dynamically update the weights of experts. An algorithm is designed to capture the consensus reaching process in multiattribute group decision making, where internal and external experts are distinguished by proposing a parameter. Finally, the high-performance battery supplier selection of new energy vehicle is studied to illustrate the proposed model. The results reveal that the efficiency of reaching consensus can be enhanced by using the developed model with effective management of NCBs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".