The technique of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) based on the triangular q-rung fuzzy numbers (TR-q-ROFNS) with applications in best African coffee brand selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The African coffee market offers a rich and diverse range of coffee profiles. The coffee producers of Africa face numerous challenges like climate change, market fluctuations, diseases, soil degradation and limited access to finance. These challenges badly affect their productivity, quality and livelihood. There are different factors like social and cultural, which can affect the coffee production. This study aims to develop multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and their applications in coffee market specifically in identifying factors influencing consumers' coffee brand preferences in South Africa, which is known for its vibrant coffee culture. For this purpose, first we developed the technique of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in the environment of triangular q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers. The triangular q-rung fuzzy numbers can effectively handle the uncertainity. The AHP technique has widely been used in decision making due to its flexibility in assigning weights and dealing with vagueness. The weights of critera plays a very important role in an MCDM problem. The development of AHP technique in triangular q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment can improve the decision making (DM) by handling vagueness in data and by using the most appropriate weights. Furthermore this new proposed method improves accuracy and minimize the information loss. The newly peoposed method is applied to different MCDM problems and comparative analysis is conducted to check the validity of results.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".