ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018
Nature Disaster Risk Evaluation with a Group Decision Making Method Based on Incomplete Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Group Decision Making Approach Considering Self-confidence Behaviors and Its Application in Environmental Pollution Emergency Management.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- A Novel Multiattribute Decision-Making Method Based on Point⁻Choquet Aggregation Operators and Its Application in Supporting the Hierarchical Medical Treatment System in China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because the natural disaster system is a very comprehensive and large system, the disaster reduction scheme must rely on risk analysis. Experts' knowledge and experiences play a critical role in disaster risk assessment. The hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation is an effective tool to express experts' preference information when comparing pairwise alternatives. Owing to the lack of knowledge or a heavy workload, information may be missed in the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation. Thus, an incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation is constructed. In this paper, we firstly discuss some properties of the additive consistent hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation. Next, the incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation, the normalized hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation, and the acceptable hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation are defined. Afterwards, three procedures to estimate the missing information are proposed. The first one deals with the situation in which there are only n-1 known judgments involving all the alternatives; the second one is used to estimate the missing information of the hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation with more known judgments; while the third procedure is used to deal with ignorance situations in which there is at least one alternative with totally missing information. Furthermore, an algorithm for group decision making with incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations is given. Finally, we illustrate our model with a case study about flood disaster risk evaluation. A comparative analysis is presented to testify the advantage of our method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.