MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403683610 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2024.20.11

Fuzzy Soft Sets and its Application to Decision Making: A Short Case Study Involving the Health Sector

2024· article· en· W4403683610 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicFuzzy and Soft Set Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicComputer scienceSoft computingMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The health sector faces uncertainty and complex decision-making scenarios, making traditional analytical tools insufficient. The fuzzy soft set theory has emerged as a powerful framework for modeling and reasoning with uncertain information, with promising applications in the health domain. This project explores the application of fuzzy soft sets in various decision-making processes in the health sector, including medical diagnosis, disease classification, treatment planning, risk assessment, patient stratification, and predictive modeling. The study reviews historical development of fuzzy set theory and its extension to soft sets, discussing challenges, limitations, and future research directions. The findings aim to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the practical relevance and potential of fuzzy soft set theory in addressing healthcare decision-making needs.

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.

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)0.022
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.313 · 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