The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Group decision making with incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this paper is to propose a procedure to estimate missing preference values when dealing with incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations assessed using a two-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. This procedure attempts to estimate the missing information in an individual incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relation using only the preference values provided by the respective expert. It is guided by the additive consistency property to maintain experts' consistency levels. Additionally, we present a selection process of alternatives in group decision making with incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations and analyze the use of our estimation procedure in the decision process. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words
Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1109/91.890332 · Cited by 2,662
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Intelligent Systems
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 201-222
- ISSN
- 0884-8173 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-111X
- OpenAlex
- W4251950542
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
