EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 202 (2020) E3S Web Conf., 202 (2020) 14003 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 202, 2020
The 5th International Conference on Energy, Environmental and Information System (ICENIS 2020)
Article Number 14003
Number of page(s) 16
Section Decision Support System
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020214003
Published online 10 November 2020
  1. P. Jiang, M. Elag, P. Kumar, S.D. Peckham, L. Marini, L. Rui, “A service-oriented architecture for coupling web service models using the Basic Model Interface (BMI),” Environmental Modelling & Software 92, pp. 107-118, (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. A. Navarro and A.d. Silva, “A metamodel-based definition of a conversion mechanism between SOAP and RESTful web services,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, pp. 49-70, (2016). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmed and Kilic, “Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A performance analysis of various algorithms,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems Vol. 362, pp. 110-128, (2019). [Google Scholar]
  4. S.-H. Tsaur, T.-Y. Chang, C.-H. Yen, “The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM,” Tourism Management, pp. 107-115, (2002). [Google Scholar]
  5. Owusu-Agyeman dkk., “An embedded fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for evaluating lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning,” Studies in Educational Evaluation 55, pp. 46-57, (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. N.Ç. Gören, E. Gören, D. Öznaz, C.D., “Textile program students’ evaluation of lecturers,” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, p. 3442–3446, (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Gnanavelbabu and P. Arunagiri, “Ranking of MUDA using AHP and Fuzzy AHP algorithm,” Materials Today: Proceedings 5, p. 13406–13412, (2018). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. A.R. Afshari, ,M. Nikolic, Z. Akbari, “PERSONNEL SELECTION USING GROUP FUZZY AHP AND SAW,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AND COMPETITIVENESS (JEMC), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3-10, (2017). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Malczewski, GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis, illustrated ed, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  10. E.R. Setyani and R. Saputra, “Flood-prone Areas Mapping at Semarang City By Using Simple Additive Weighting Method,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 227, p. 378–386, (2016). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. O. Cizela da Costa Tavares, Suyoto, Pranowo, “Hybrid Method for Mobile learning Cooperative: Study of Timor Lest,” E3S Web of Conferences 31, p. 10005, (2018). [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  12. Y-J. Wang, “Combining quality function deployment with simple additive weighting for interval-valued fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making with dependent evaluation criteria,” Soft Computing , vol. 24, p. 7757–7767, (2019). [Google Scholar]
  13. H.V. Blottnitz, J.M. Case, D.M. Fraser, “Sustainable development at the core of undergraduate engineering curriculum reform: a new introductory course in chemical engineering,” Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 300-307, (2015). [Google Scholar]
  14. F.E. Daromes and NG Suwandi, “Embedding core value into the internal quality assurance systems in higher education,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, p. 660–664, (2015). [Google Scholar]
  15. S. Lindblom-Ylänne, K. Trigwell, A. Nevgi, P. Ashwin, “How approaches to teaching are effected by discipline and teaching context,” Studies in Higher Education, p. 285–298, (2006). [Google Scholar]
  16. T. Erl, SOA Principles of Service Design, USA: Prentice Hall Press Upper Saddle River, (2016). [Google Scholar]
  17. L.A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, pp. 338-353, (1965). [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research 95, pp. 649-655, (1996). [Google Scholar]
  19. T. L. Saaty, Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, (1984). [Google Scholar]
  20. T. L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process, planning, priority, setting, resource allocation, New York: Mc-Graw Hill, (1980.) [Google Scholar]
  21. P. J. M. Van Laarhoven and W. Pedrycz, “Fuzzy extension for Saaty’s priority theory,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 11, p. 229–241, (1983). [Google Scholar]
  22. J. Buckley, “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 17, p. 233–247, (1985). [Google Scholar]
  23. C. H. Cheng, “Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 96, p. 343–350, (1996.) [Google Scholar]
  24. L. Mikhailov, “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 134, no. 3, p. 365–385, (2003). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.