首页> 外文OA文献 >Different methods, different wilds: Evaluating alternative mappings of wildness using fuzzy MCE and Dempster-Shafer MCE
【2h】

Different methods, different wilds: Evaluating alternative mappings of wildness using fuzzy MCE and Dempster-Shafer MCE

机译:不同的方法,不同的荒野:使用模糊MCE和Dempster-Shafer MCE评估荒野的替代映射

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Different multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) approaches are applied to a fuzzy wildness mapping problem in Scotland. The result of fuzzy weighted linear combination and fuzzy order weighted averaging approaches are compared with the application of a Dempster-Shafer MCE. We discuss the implications of different approaches in light of decision making associated with suitability in a context where (i) suitability (wildness) may not be very well defined, (ii) the decision makers may not fully understand the informatics aspects associated with applying weights, but (iii) require decisions to be accountable and transparent. In such situations we suggest that the outputs of Dempster-Shafer MCE may be more appropriate than a fully fuzzy model of suitability.
机译:在苏格兰,将不同的多准则评估(MCE)方法应用于模糊野性映射问题。将模糊加权线性组合和模糊阶次加权平均方法的结果与Dempster-Shafer MCE的应用进行了比较。在以下情况下,我们将根据与适应性相关的决策制定方法讨论不同方法的含义:(i)适应性(野性)可能未得到很好的定义;(ii)决策者可能未完全理解与权重相关的信息学方面,但(iii)要求决策必须负责且透明。在这种情况下,我们建议Dempster-Shafer MCE的输出可能比适用性的完全模糊模型更合适。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号