Application of Delphi-Entropy Weight-TOPSIS Model in the Assessment of Safe Urban Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban safety development is one of the guarantees for the overall development of the city, and the study uses Delphi method, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method in the assessment of urban safety development. An improved Delphi-entropy weight-TOPSIS combination assessment model is constructed to evaluate the urban safety development. The evaluation index system of urban safety development is constructed, and the evaluation indexes of urban safety development are calculated by Delphi method and entropy weight method respectively, and the subjective and objective weights of the evaluation indexes of urban safety development are derived, and finally, the comprehensive weights are calculated by the method of combined weight assignment. The comprehensive weights of the guideline layer of the urban safety development evaluation index system are 0.1874, 0.2080, 0.2005, 0.2187, and 0.1854, respectively.The evaluation index system is used for empirical research, and City A is taken as the object of the research to assess its urban safety development status during the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. From the evaluation results, it is known that the overall urban safety development of City A during the 10-year period shows an upward trend, with slight fluctuations in the process, but the overall development is good, and the evaluation score of urban safety development improves from 0.4657 points in 2014 to 0.6479 points in 2023.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".