Research on the Design of Multi-Objective Decision Optimization Model and Legal Suitability in Environmental Legal Dispute Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction of ecological civilization is a fundamental plan related to the sustainable development of economy and society, and the dispute settlement mechanism of environmental damages is its innovative and important content.Starting from the environmental legal dispute resolution mechanism, the article analyzes the legal basis of environmental dispute mediation and the process related to pre-litigation mediation.Considering environmental legal dispute resolution as a kind of multi-objective decision-making optimization problem, a multi-objective decision-making optimization model for environmental legal disputes is constructed with the objective functions of legal effectiveness, legal applicability and subject interest rate.Then adaptive inertia weights and dynamic image Pareto solution set updating strategy are introduced to improve the multi-objective particle swarm algorithm, and combined with information entropy-based TOPSIS decision-making to realize the optimal solution selection for environmental legal dispute resolution.In the multi-objective decision-making optimization model, the improved multi-objective particle swarm algorithm achieves the optimum for a total of 15 data, and the simulation time in solving the optimal solution of the 10*10*5 case problem is only 2.314s, and the optimal solution of environmental legal dispute resolution can be obtained based on different objective functions.Environmental legal dispute resolution needs to aim at effectiveness, applicability and subject's interests, introduce appropriate punitive damages, realize the effective connection between administrative law and criminal law, and promote the high efficiency of environmental legal dispute resolution.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".