4.7 Article

Project evaluation method using non-formatted text information based on multi-granular linguistic labels

Journal

INFORMATION FUSION
Volume 24, Issue -, Pages 93-107

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus.2014.09.006

Keywords

Decision analysis; Project evaluation; Multiple-criteria decision analysis; Chinese text evaluation information; Multi-granular linguistic label

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71171112, 71401064]
  2. Basic Science Research Foundation of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics [NS2014086]
  3. Jiangsu University Philosophy and Social Sciences Major Project [2012ZDIXM007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We propose a novel project evaluation method for non-formatted Chinese text evaluation information. First, the non-formatted Chinese text evaluation information is determined and expressed using extensible markup language and a hypertext preprocessor. Then, the evaluation problem is transformed into a multiple-criteria decision-analysis problem based on multi-granular linguistic labels, including a comprehensive evaluation score for alternatives and an evaluation criteria point score for incomplete items. Next, we propose a weighting model for the criteria based on the minimal difference between the comprehensive evaluation score and the evaluation criterion point score of decision-makers. We establish an estimation model for incomplete evaluation items with the minimal evidence distance of Dempster-Shafer theory using maximal group consistency. In addition, we calculate a weighting for the decision-makers using the similarity of the group. Finally, we present a score modification method for alternatives based on weights of the criteria and the decision-maker. We use a soft science project evaluation and selection to illustrate the application process and feasibility of the proposed method. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available