MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410095936 · doi:10.63689/2993-7159.1274

Development of Aczel-Alsina Aggregation Operators in Neutrosophic Cubic Sets for Multi-Expert and Multi-Criteria Weighting: Optimizing Alternative Fuel Technology Selection

2025· article· en· W4410095936 on OpenAlexaff
Majid Iqbal Khan, Muhammad Gulistan, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Mohammed M. Ali Al-Shamiri, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeutrosophic Systems with Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeutrosophic Systems with ApplicationsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207