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

n ~ cihvi i= 1 where Cih is the confidence proportion defined by Equation I, Vi is the confidence quota of participant i and is used for weighting, Pih is the projection proportion relating participant i to option h and is computed as in the SPAN 11 program, and qi is the magnitude subquota of individual i and is used for judgments. The first pair of parentheses encloses the expression for the weight Wih, and the second pair contains the expression for the amount of direct power of participant i that was allocated to option h on the first cycle. Correspondingly, the weighted average number of indirect points from all members to each of the m options is found from A program has been written to extend the capabilities of the Social Participatory Allocative Network (SPAN) method of collecting participants' judgments and synthesizing group decisions. In particular, the SPAN III program can process numbers expressing participants' judgments either with or without processing secondary numbers indicating participants' confidence in their judgments. Thus, it adds confidence weighting to functions performed by two previous versions of the SPAN program. The initial SPAN program (MacKinnon & MacKinnon, 1969) processed data obtained by permitting participants to vote both directly for options (alternative solutions to problems, for example) and indirectly by using other members as representatives. The program cumulated the numerical voting power apportioned directly and also iteratively redistributed the indirectly apportioned power according to the receivers' voting pattern, until virtually all power had cumulated for options. The SPAN 11 program introduced the processing of numerical voting power cast by the method of magnitude estimation (MacKinnon & Cockrum, 1973). The SPAN III program incorporates these functions of its forerunners. The weighting extension of the group procedure and computer program for the SPAN III method was designed to improve the quality of group judgments, by utilizing more of the participants' subjective information, and to stimulate members' willingness to participate in complex decision making, by permitting them to specify the weight each of their judgments would carry . To these ends, as SPAN 11 could be combined with Delphi methods (MacKinnon, 1973), the extended system might also serve in combination. To specify power,judgment, and confidence, the new system involves for each participant an original quota, two subquotas, four multiple assignments of numbers, and three dual assignments. Allotments of quotas and subquotas and assignments of dual numbers could be divided in various ways between a director and participants, although the program was devised to increase participants' choices. The magnitude estimation method is suitable for the multiple assignments, and the split-lOO method for the dual assignments. The following ex-

The SPAN III computer program for synthesizing group decisions: Weighting participants’ judgments in proportion to confidence