A Comprehensive Intelligent Traffic Monitoring System Based on a Novel Integration of Neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the spread of road accidents and traffic congestion that costs countries and governments a lot of money in addition to the loss of human lives, and since traditional methods of monitoring traffic have not been as effective as desired, attention has been drawn to the search for more effective solutions to the problem of monitoring and regulating traffic. With the spread of technology and the Internet of Things, UAVs have emerged as a promising tool for monitoring traffic, as they can fly for a sufficient period and operate in difficult climatic conditions, in addition to their ability to monitor traffic congestion and prefer less crowded roads for cars, as well as record road accidents and crimes and inform officials in real-time. Due to the many available types of UAVs, choosing the appropriate type with multiple and contradictory characteristics is a very difficult task. Therefore, in this research, we propose a new approach that combines the OWCM and WASPAS techniques, integrated with the neutrosophic set for the first time for selecting and evaluating UAVs used in traffic monitoring and regulation. The use of a neutrosophic set is an effective way to address the decision-making problem of ambiguity, where linguistic information is transformed into neutrosophic interval numbers using a new scale introduced in this paper, which highlights the importance of criteria and expert-based choices. The proposed approach has been proven effective in selecting a UAV for traffic monitoring and dealing with ambiguity efficiently through sensitivity analysis and comparison.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".