Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41294984›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

An AHP-ME-IOWA Model for Assessing National Space Technology Scientific and Technological Strength: A Case Study of the United States.

Yingying Chen, Zhenqiang Qi, Jinzhao Li, Yuting Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yingying ChenChina Aerospace Academy of Systems Science and Engineering, Beijing 100048, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2325-2177
Zhenqiang QiChina Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, Beijing 100076, China.
Jinzhao LiChina Aerospace Academy of Systems Science and Engineering, Beijing 100048, China.
Yuting ZhuChina Aerospace Academy of Systems Science and Engineering, Beijing 100048, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6508-7456

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Space technology, a frontier of global scientific innovation, is crucial for competitive edges and national tech innovation. Amid intensified international competition and rapid technological change, scientifically evaluating a country's Scientific and Technological Strength in Space Technology (STSST) is vital. A model is innovatively proposed in this study called "Analytic Hierarchy Process-Maximum Entropy-Induced Ordered Weighted Average (AHP-ME-IOWA)" for the assessment of STSST. First, an STSST assessment indicator system is developed with four sub-dimensions: scientific research, industrial operation, innovation output, and policy resources. Second, the AHP model is used to convert experts' qualitative judgments on indicator importance into initial individual weight vectors. Subsequently, the IOWA operator is employed to aggregate these individual weight vectors, thereby mitigating the impact of outliers and enhancing the robustness of the weights. Specifically, the weights are reordered using the cosine similarity between each expert's weight vector and the temporary group mean as the induced value. Position weights are then determined via the ME method, and consensus weights are derived through re-aggregation. A systematic evaluation of the United States' STSST was conducted using this method. The results show that the United States achieved a comprehensive STSST score of 8.73 (out of 10), which is in line with the actual situation, thereby providing empirical validation for the proposed method.

Indexed as

analytic hierarchy processinduced ordered weighted averagingmaximum entropyspace technology

Identifiers

PMID41294984
PMCPMC12651672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.