ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A TOPSIS-Inspired Ranking Method Using Constrained Crowd Opinions for Urban Planning.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Crowdsourcing has become an important tool for gathering knowledge for urban planning problems. The questions posted to the crowd for urban planning problems are quite different from the traditional crowdsourcing models. Unlike the traditional crowdsourcing models, due to the constraints among the multiple components (e.g., multiple locations of facilities) in a single question and non-availability of the defined option sets, aggregating of multiple diverse opinions that satisfy the constraints as well as finding the ranking of the crowd workers becomes challenging. Moreover, owing to the presence of the conflicting nature of features, the traditional ranking methods such as the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) cannot always be feasible as the optimal solutions in terms of multiple objectives cannot occur simultaneously for the conflicting cases (e.g., benefit and cost criteria) for urban planning problems. Therefore, in this work, a multi-objective approach is proposed to produce better compromised solutions in terms of conflicting features from the general crowd. In addition, the solutions are employed to obtain a proper ideal solution for ranking the crowd. The experimental results are validated using two constrained crowd opinion datasets for real-world urban planning problems and compared with the state-of-the-art TOPSIS models.
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.