Dealing With Heterogeneous Information in Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Problems: A Comprehensive Design Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides a comprehensive review of the literature on group decision-making with heterogeneous information, aiming to map the main characteristics in this field, pointing out gaps, and suggesting new promising approaches and methods to overcome current limitations. The research reveals the main research front directions, key authors, most common application areas, the most frequently used preference formats, and aggregation schemes in the existing studies are discussed. The research innovation and originality lie in developing five new approaches and methods to overcome the identified gaps and limitations. First, a transparent, comprehensive, and intuitive framework for dealing with heterogeneous information in multi-criteria group decision problems is proposed. Second, a standardization scheme is introduced to define the name of the preference format when it has many names and establish a standard naming structure for all formats. Third, an easy-to-follow framework for categorizing existing and new formats to facilitate understanding the structure of each format is studied. Fourth, the new “relational ordered preference” is introduced, a format that increases agility and accuracy in alternative assessments. Fifth, we introduce a pioneering aggregation scheme (consensus-based ordered weighted averaging operator) to maximize the consensus level between individual and collective assessments. An illustrative and a real-world example are also provided. The example of the governance composite indicator shows that relational ordered preference increases the accuracy of assessments and, consequently, the degree of consensus. In turn, the consensus-based approach achieved higher degrees of consensus than extreme value reductions, indicating that preserving more convergent opinions contributes more to consensus than preserving intermediate opinions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".