ArticleScientific reports2025
A robust fractional fuzzy decision support framework for sustainable energy planning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evidence-fused neutrosophic framework for uncertainty-aware treatment selection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel generalized orthopair fuzzy CURLI MCDM framework for smart art communication integrating emotional intelligence.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An advanced fermatean fuzzy DoC MCDM architecture for comprehensive quantitative assessment of physical fitness competency across academic institutions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An intelligent computational framework combining neural networks with complex Pythagorean fuzzy FUCA for airspace capacity evaluation and traffic forecasting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spherical bipolar fuzzy decision model for green infrastructure selection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing global population and rapid technological advancements are driving a surge in energy demand. Meanwhile, fossil fuel dependence as a primary energy source is contributing to environmental issues, including greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. These challenges underscore the urgent necessity of transitioning to sustainable energy solutions. Renewable energy systems (RES) are critical alternatives that can facilitate sustainable development goals. Nevertheless, the selection of the most suitable RES for specific geography, particularly within Industry 4.0, poses substantial decision-making complexities due to the intricate criteria involved. This paper introduces a robust method for evaluating RES. The proposed approach integrates f, g, h-fractional fuzzy sets (f, g, h-FrFS) into multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), enhancing the decision-making process. The f, g, h-FrFS framework effectively captures decision-makers' preferences by considering membership degrees (MB), non-membership degrees (NMB), and indeterminacy degrees (ID). Initially, the importance of evaluation criteria is determined through the improved Criteria Importance through Inter-Criteria Correlation (CRITIC) method. Following this, the WASPAS model is used to provide an accurate ranking of the RES. Geothermal energy is recognized as the most reliable RES option. To test the robustness of the proposed approach, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, demonstrating the stability of the model under varying conditions. The effectiveness of this framework is further validated through a comparative study analysis. Ultimately, this technique offers significant value for policymakers, energy managers, and organizations involved in renewable energy systems. In Industry 4.0, energy planning and development is complicated, so this tool can assist them in navigating the complexities.
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.