Prioritization of the Critical Factors of Hydrogen Transportation in Canada Using the Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen is a potential source of imminent clean energy in the future, with its transportation playing a crucial role in allowing large-scale deployment. The challenge lies in selecting an effective, sustainable, and scalable transportation alternative. This study develops a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework based on the intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP) to evaluate land-based hydrogen transportation alternatives across Canada. The framework includes uncertainty and decision-maker hesitation through the application of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (TIFNs). Seven factors, their subsequent thirty-three subfactors, and three alternatives to hydrogen transportation were identified through a literature review. Pairwise comparison was aggregated among factors, subfactors, and alternatives from three decision makers using an intuitionistic fuzzy weighted average, and priority weights were computed using entropy-based weight. The results show that safety and economic efficiency emerged as the most influential factors in the evaluation of hydrogen transportation alternatives, followed by environmental impact, security, and social impact and public health in ascending order. Among the alternatives, tube truck transport obtained the highest overall weight (0.3551), followed by pipelines (0.3272) and rail lines (0.3251). The findings suggest that the tube ruck is currently the most feasible transport option for land-based hydrogen distribution that aims to provide a transition of Canada’s energy mix.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".