The Impact of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Parameters on an Urban Deprivation Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a family of decision support methods that allow analysts to structure a decision problem through the selection and evaluation of multiple and often conflicting criteria, using established techniques to standardize, weight, and combine these criteria. Through a case study of an area-based deprivation index for the city of Toronto’s 140 neighbourhoods, we examine the variability of MCDA results under different decision models. We use interactive cartographic visualization to explore the impact of criterion weighting and three decision rules: weighted linear combination, locally weighted linear combination, and ordered weighted averaging. The modelling of socioeconomic deprivation using these different decision rules and their parameters yielded different spatial patterns of deprivation for the same set of variables and weights. The results highlight the importance of examining multiple decision models before making policy recommendations.</p> <p><br></p> <p> </p> <p>Keywords: analytic hierarchy process, area-based composite index, locally weighted linear combination, multi-criteria decision analysis, ordered weighted averaging, socio-economic deprivation</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".