Novel Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Maritime Infrastructure Maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maintenance of critical maritime infrastructure is essential for ensuring the safe, reliable, and efficient operations of marine seaports. This paper proposes a novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for evaluating the maintenance practices and culture of maintenance-critical maritime infrastructure, such as port loading and unloading machinery and equipment. The proposed framework incorporates three distinct multi-criteria decision-making tools Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis, Weighted Aggregate Sum Product Assessment, and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. Fuzzy logic is incorporated into the framework to enhance the precision and robustness of the evaluation process. To form the basis of the assessment, the framework is structured around five key maintenance practice criteria: planning and scheduling; data collection and analysis; documentation and record keeping; maintenance personnel training; and competency, and four important maintenance culture criteria: leadership commitment, proactive and preventive approach, safety and compliance focus, and continuous improvement and learning. To validate the framework, an empirical evaluation was conducted, analyzing maintenance practices and culture across six Nigerian seaports. Data collection uses a questionnaire administered to relevant maintenance experts in the ports, ensuring a comprehensive and expert-informed analysis. The data collected was then analyzed using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework. The results provide valuable and actionable insights into the current maintenance practices and maintenance culture of the ports, identifying areas for improvement.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".