MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415649967 · doi:10.1007/s40747-025-02078-2

Dombi aggregation operator in terms of complex bipolar fuzzy sets with application in decision making problems

2025· article· en· W4415649967 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComplex & Intelligent Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptabilityFuzzy logicFlexibility (engineering)Computational intelligenceOperator (biology)GeneralizationFuzzy setFuzzy set operations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complex bipolar fuzzy sets fundamentally expand upon bipolar fuzzy sets and complex fuzzy set, and demonstrate efficacy in dealing with two-dimensional uncertainty, specifically where amplitude and phase information are both relevant. However, existing aggregation operators within the complex bipolar fuzzy environment generally fail to provide ample flexibility and generalization to accommodate broader range of decision-making scenarios. To overcome this deficiency, this research puts forward four novel aggregation operators based on Dombi operations: Complex bipolar Dombi fuzzy weighted arithmetic aggregation operator, Complex bipolar Dombi fuzzy weighted geometric aggregation operator, Complex bipolar Dombi fuzzy ordered weighted arithmetic aggregation operator, and Complex bipolar Dombi fuzzy ordered weighted geometric aggregation operator. These operators incorporate operational parameters to enhance adaptability and accuracy in aggregation processes. In this research, we propose the mathematical formulation and fundamental properties of these operators within the complex bipolar fuzzy framework. To demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed method, a case study involving the selection of a buffalo with the objective of profit maximization and the best possible return on investment is presented. The outcomes confirm that the suggested operators offer enhanced flexibility and efficiency over existing aggregation methods. The comparative study additionally demonstrates their distinct advantages, making them valuable tools for complex bipolar fuzzy decision-making applications.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.282 · 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