Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41951850›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Developing a partner selection framework for digital agricultural science and technology innovation alliances.

Mingqiu Li, Jinqiu Li, Yuyou Zou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Mingqiu LiCollege of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China.
Jinqiu LiSchool of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, 150001, China.
Yuyou ZouCollege of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, 150040, China. yuyouzou@163.com.

Funding

National Social Science Foundation 24CGL024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selecting appropriate collaborators represents a critical factor in ensuring optimal innovation outcomes for Digital Agricultural Science and Technology (DAST) alliances. The partner identification process for DAST innovation coalitions constitutes a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) challenge characterized by temporal dynamics and information ambiguity. This study proposes a time-weighted orthogonal projection approach within dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy environments to address this challenge. This approach fully considers decision-making rules and resource complementarity: First, it allocates weights by integrating the time dimension with multi-objective optimization model construction, fully absorbing decision information at different stages through time weight solutions to reduce uncertainty in multi-stage information collection; Second, it employs fuzzy set theory and orthogonal projection method to evaluate members and candidate partners. Based on this theoretical foundation, this paper proposes a field model incorporating resource complementarity for selecting optimal partners. This novel field model can assist agricultural science and technology innovation alliances in implementing collaborative innovation practices, while simultaneously providing decision-making guidance for optimizing dynamic partner selection models to build long-term stable partnership relationships. Practical validation through China’s 5G Agricultural Digitalization Alliance case study demonstrates the methodology’s practicality and operational efficacy.

Indexed as

Digital agricultural science and technologyField theoryInformation entropyInnovation allianceOrthogonal projectionPartner selection

Identifiers

PMID41951850
PMCPMC13219621

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.