Development of Aczel-Alsina Aggregation Operators in Neutrosophic Cubic Sets for Multi-Expert and Multi-Criteria Weighting: Optimizing Alternative Fuel Technology Selection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing vague and uncertain data has long been a challenge in decision-making (DM), particularly in scenarios where criteria and expert assessments play a critical role. This paper introduces operational laws based on Aczel-Alsina (AA) norms within Neutrosophic Cubic Sets (NCS) to more effectively handle uncertainty. Leveraging these operational laws, we propose two aggregation operators: the Neutrosophic Cubic Aczel-Alsina Weighted Averaging (NCAAWA) and the Neutrosophic Cubic Aczel-Alsina Weighted Geometric (NCAAWG) operators. These provide a comprehensive approach to data aggregation, preserving both additive and multiplicative influences on outcomes in complex systems. In DM, the importance of weights is paramount, and we introduce a novel method for determining weights based on a model value that represents the entire dataset. This model value serves as a pivotal measure for deriving weights, reflecting the relevance and influence of each input from expert and criteria matrices. The use of model value enhances the intuitiveness and accuracy of the aggregated results. To demonstrate the utility of this approach, we propose a DM method that integrates NCAAWA and NCAAWG with the Weighted Aggregated Sum and Product Assessment Selection (WASPAS) model, allowing for the simultaneous consideration of both additive and multiplicative criteria. This dual approach provides a more comprehensive evaluation of alternatives by accounting for the cumulative and interactive contributions of criteria. The proposed DM method is applied to the evaluation of alternative fuel technologies (AFT), a complex area involving multi-expert criteria that span economic, social, environmental, and technical aspects. The framework offers a balanced and thorough assessment, accommodating the interdependencies and uncertainties inherent in the criteria involved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it