2021
DOI: 10.1515/comp-2020-0213
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling the interdependent relationships among epidemic antecedents using fuzzy multiple attribute decision making (F-MADM) approaches

Abstract: With the high incidence of the dengue epidemic in developing countries, it is crucial to understand its dynamics from a holistic perspective. This paper analyzes different types of antecedents from a cybernetics perspective using a structural modelling approach. The novelty of this paper is twofold. First, it analyzes antecedents that may be social, institutional, environmental, or economic in nature. Since this type of study has not been done in the context of the dengue epidemic modelling, this paper offers … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 111 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As such, it could be useful when determining the priority of a large number of alternatives. In fact, Abellana (2021) successfully used BWM to reduce a large number of antecedents of the dengue epidemic. Kheybari et al (2019) also used the BWM to determine the overall score of bioethanol facility locations given a large number of criteria in a location selection problem.…”
Section: Best-worst Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, it could be useful when determining the priority of a large number of alternatives. In fact, Abellana (2021) successfully used BWM to reduce a large number of antecedents of the dengue epidemic. Kheybari et al (2019) also used the BWM to determine the overall score of bioethanol facility locations given a large number of criteria in a location selection problem.…”
Section: Best-worst Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Step 1: Establish the decision matrices X (1) , X (2) , X (3) of legal expert ε 1 , investment expert ε 2 , and population expert ε 3 , respectively, as Tables 1-3: Step 2: Determine the average decision matrix X = (x ij ) l * n of legal expert ε 1 , investment expert ε 2 , and population expert ε 3 using Equation (2) as Table 4: Step 3: Determine the similarity matrix. Using Equation (4), the distance d…”
Section: Determination Of Expert Weightsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, and then the similarity matrix S (k) = (s (k) ) l * n of each expert and ideal solution X are obtained by the similarity given by Equation (5). The similarity matrices S (1) , S (2) , and S (3) of ε 1 , ε 2 , and ε 3 , respectively, are as Tables 5-7: Step 4: Determine the similarity correction matrix. Using Equation ( 7) to correct the similarity, the similarity correction matrices S * (1) , S * (2) , and S * (3) of ε 1 , ε 2 , and ε 3 .…”
Section: Determination Of Expert Weightsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In epidemiological diagnostics, this is an extremely urgent task, since the data collected by institutions and government centers does not depend on their importance for modeling. Therefore, dimensionality reduction methods help to discard unnecessary data on morbidity [69], reduce computational complexity [70], and identify informative signs [71] and factors influencing the epidemic process [72].…”
Section: Machine Learning Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%