IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i22p3520-d1518675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic Linguistic TODIM Method with Probabilistic Linguistic Entropy Weight and Hamming Distance for Teaching Reform Plan Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Wenshuai Wu

    (Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)

Abstract

In the context of the construction of new liberal arts, the integration and intersection of disciplines have become a new trend in the development of higher education. How to promote the teaching reform of big data technology and application courses in the new liberal arts construction scenario has become an important issue in enhancing students’ digital talent literacy and social adaptability. In this study, an extended probabilistic linguistic TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for interactive multi-criteria decision making) with probabilistic linguistic entropy weight and Hamming distance is presented for teaching reform plan evaluation for the core course “big data technology and applications” in the digital economy major. Firstly, probabilistic linguistic entropy weight, based on the entropy of the additive linguistic term set, is applied to generate weight information. Secondly, parameter sensitivity analysis is carried out to prove the stabilization and effectiveness of the extended TODIM approach. Thirdly, this extended approach can integrate the psychological factors and cognitive behaviors of decision-makers for effectively responding to education management in the new liberal arts construction scenario. Finally, a case study on teaching reform plan evaluation is carried out, and a comparative analysis with different criteria weights and different methods is conducted to verify the extended approach. The results indicate that the extended approach can provide an effective technical tool for scientific decision-making, especially in the teaching reform plan evaluation scenario in order to promote high-quality development of education.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenshuai Wu, 2024. "Probabilistic Linguistic TODIM Method with Probabilistic Linguistic Entropy Weight and Hamming Distance for Teaching Reform Plan Evaluation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:22:p:3520-:d:1518675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/22/3520/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/22/3520/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou & Yi Peng, 2018. "A consensus facilitation model based on experts’ weights for investment strategy selection," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(9), pages 1435-1444, September.
    2. Zhiping Hou & Sangsang He & Ruxia Liang & Junbo Li & Ruilu Huang & Jianqiang Wang, 2023. "Evaluating Economy Hotel Website Service Quality: A Hybrid Bounded Rationality Behavioral Decision Support Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Pingping Cao & Jin Zheng & Mingyang Li, 2023. "Product Selection Considering Multiple Consumers’ Expectations and Online Reviews: A Method Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Soft Sets and TODIM," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Gang Kou & Wenshuai Wu, 2014. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for emergency medical service assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 223(1), pages 239-254, December.
    7. Cavallo, Bice & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2025. "A comparative study on precision of direct evaluations, the Pairwise Comparisons Method and the Best-Worst Method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. Zhili Jia & Liyi Liu & Zhaofeng Diao, 2024. "A Group Intuitionistic Fuzzy Exponential TODIM Method Considering Attribute Interactions Applied to Green Building Material Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-24, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weijia Kang & Xin Liang & Yan Peng, 2025. "Probabilistic Linguistic Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making Based on a Choquet Operator and Its Application in Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yinrunjie Zhang & Decui Liang & Zeshui Xu, 2025. "Cross-platform hotel evaluation by aggregating multi-website consumer reviews with probabilistic linguistic term set and Choquet integral," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 348(1), pages 221-255, May.
    2. Huchang Liao & Guangsen Si & Zeshui Xu & Hamido Fujita, 2018. "Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Utility Set and Its Application in Selection of Fire Rescue Plans," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Yanli Meng & Li Wang & Francisco Chiclana & Haijun Yang & Sha Wang, 2025. "A dynamic cost compensation mechanism driven by moderator preferences for group consensus in lending platforms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 347(3), pages 1425-1454, April.
    4. Yan, Hong-Bin & Ma, Tieju & Huynh, Van-Nam, 2017. "On qualitative multi-attribute group decision making and its consensus measure: A probability based perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 94-117.
    5. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    6. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    7. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    10. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    11. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    12. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    13. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    14. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    15. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    16. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    17. Alex Cukierman & Anton Muscatelli, 2001. "Do Central Banks have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability?," Working Papers 2002_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2002.
    18. Dash, Saumya Ranjan & Maitra, Debasish, 2018. "Does sentiment matter for stock returns? Evidence from Indian stock market using wavelet approach," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 32-39.
    19. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    20. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:22:p:3520-:d:1518675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.