4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Teranga Go! : Carpooling Collaborative Consumption Community with multi-criteria hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set opinions to build confidence and trust

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 941-952

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.039

关键词

Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set; Linguistic 2-tuples; Multicriteria decision making; Collaborative consumption; Carpooling

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [TIN2014-57251-P]
  2. Andalusian Research Project [P11-TIC-7765]
  3. Campus of International Excellence CEI BioTIC Granada [TIC11-2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boosting collaborative or participatory consumption is a priority for the European Commission. It is in line with the provisions of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which proposes that consumption of goods and services should take place in accordance with smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. These have motivated us to develop an online community for collaborative consumption centered in the Senegalese community that travels by car from Europe to Africa named Teranga Go!. Carpooling relationships are based on the sense of a real existing community, social experiences among users, and connection through technology, where confidence is the key concept. To help creating values of confidence, trust and safety among the members of the Teranga Go! community, we have implemented an intelligent decision support system in the platform based on computing with words. The participants of a carpooling experience act as experts that assess the driver aptitudes and determine, together with the history of the driver, a linguistic value for the driver's karma which represents the collective opinion of people that have traveled with the driver. The karma is a public label attached to the site user profiles. A Multi-Expert Multi-Criteria Decision Making model is applied using Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Terms to represent the expert opinions. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据