English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We propose a new point of view in the long-standing problem where several voters have expressed a linear order relation (or ranking) over a set of candidates. For a ranking a > b > c to represent a group's opinion, it would be logical that the strength with which a > c is supported should not be less than the strength with which either a > b or b > c is supported. This intuitive property can be considered a monotonicity constraint, and has been addressed before. We extend previous approaches in the following way: as the voters are expressing linear orders, we can take the number of candidates between two candidates to be a measure of the degree to which one candidate is preferred to the other. In this way, intensity of support is both counted as the number of voters who indicate a > c is true, as well as the distance between a and c in these voters' rankings. The resulting distributions serve as input for a natural ranking rule that is based on stochastic monotonicity and stochastic dominance. Adapting the previous methodology turns out to be non-trivial once we add some natural feasibility constraints.

Adding feasibility constraints to a ranking rule under a monotonicity constraint