MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410184846 · doi:10.3934/math.2025472

Decision analysis with known and unknown weights in the complex N-cubic fuzzy environment: An application of accident prediction models

2025· article· en· W4410184846 on OpenAlexaff
Sheikh Rashid, Tahir Abbas, Muhammad Gulistan, Muhammad Usman Jamil, Mohammed M. Ali Al-Shamiri

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Mathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicAccident (philosophy)Computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The component of Pakistan's road safety management (RSM) systems that appears to be the least reliable is the evaluation of road safety measures. Road safety initiatives' daily operations, such as allocating specific financial resources and incorporating measures for road safety into the fabric of culture, are only sometimes observed by governments. When this happens, the analysis usually concentrates on issues related to the infrastructure and the enforcement of laws; thorough evaluations of road safety initiatives are incredibly uncommon. Road authorities, practitioners, and architects of road safety depend on prediction tools, often known as accident prediction models (APMs). These instruments are employed to assess safety concerns, pinpoint areas for improvement, and calculate the expected safety consequences of these modifications. The goal of this research is to use the complex N-cubic fuzzy set (CNCFS), an innovative and practical tool for decision making that excels at handling imprecise or ambiguous data in real-world decision-making processes, in the context. This study also proposes a novel entropy approach to multi-attribute group decision-making issues in RSM. We also investigate the assessment of accident forecasting models in RSM to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of the suggested strategy. Further, the advantages and superiority of the proposed strategy are explained using the experimental data and comparisons with known and unknown weights obtained by the entropy method. The study's conclusions demonstrate that the suggested approach is more workable and compatible with other current strategies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIMS MathematicsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207