Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts
This study introduces a neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework to evaluate judicial resources in protection actions within the province of Pichincha, Ecuador, with a focus on enhancing procedural equity. By integrating the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Idea...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ayandegan Institute of Higher Education,
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.journal-fea.com/article_209547_4f6dd3f10dbb568b52aefcfcfb5295b1.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832577800623620096 |
|---|---|
| author | Edwin Bolívar Prado Calderón Cecilia Campaign Muñoz Leny Salomón Alejandro Montece Giler Leonso Dagoberto Torres Torres |
| author_facet | Edwin Bolívar Prado Calderón Cecilia Campaign Muñoz Leny Salomón Alejandro Montece Giler Leonso Dagoberto Torres Torres |
| author_sort | Edwin Bolívar Prado Calderón |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study introduces a neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework to evaluate judicial resources in protection actions within the province of Pichincha, Ecuador, with a focus on enhancing procedural equity. By integrating the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) with Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) within a neutrosophic context, the proposed approach addresses the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of judicial processes. The neutrosophic framework enables a comprehensive assessment of judicial resources by incorporating degrees of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity in evaluations, offering a robust alternative to traditional MCDM methods that often struggle with subjectivity and ambiguity in legal settings. Key findings indicate that requests for review of judgments and pre-trial consultations are the most effective resources for ensuring procedural fairness and equity in judicial outcomes. This study underscores the potential of neutrosophic methods to optimize decision-making processes in the judicial field, facilitating a more transparent, objective, and equitable approach to resource evaluation. These findings open avenues for further research on the application of neutrosophic MCDM methods in legal systems and other domains where uncertainty significantly impacts decision quality. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-338361472f65416fa8af055a3f76571f |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2783-1442 2717-3453 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | Ayandegan Institute of Higher Education, |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications |
| spelling | doaj-art-338361472f65416fa8af055a3f76571f2025-01-30T15:07:23ZengAyandegan Institute of Higher Education,Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications2783-14422717-34532024-11-015Special Issue405010.22105/jfea.2024.468215.1553209547Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contextsEdwin Bolívar Prado Calderón0Cecilia Campaign Muñoz Leny1Salomón Alejandro Montece Giler2Leonso Dagoberto Torres Torres3Regional Autonomous University of the Andes, Santo Domingo, Ecuador.Regional Autonomous University of the Andes, Santo Domingo, Ecuador.Regional Autonomous University of the Andes, Santo Domingo, Ecuador.Regional Autonomous University of the Andes, Santo Domingo, Ecuador.This study introduces a neutrosophic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework to evaluate judicial resources in protection actions within the province of Pichincha, Ecuador, with a focus on enhancing procedural equity. By integrating the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) with Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) within a neutrosophic context, the proposed approach addresses the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of judicial processes. The neutrosophic framework enables a comprehensive assessment of judicial resources by incorporating degrees of truth, indeterminacy, and falsity in evaluations, offering a robust alternative to traditional MCDM methods that often struggle with subjectivity and ambiguity in legal settings. Key findings indicate that requests for review of judgments and pre-trial consultations are the most effective resources for ensuring procedural fairness and equity in judicial outcomes. This study underscores the potential of neutrosophic methods to optimize decision-making processes in the judicial field, facilitating a more transparent, objective, and equitable approach to resource evaluation. These findings open avenues for further research on the application of neutrosophic MCDM methods in legal systems and other domains where uncertainty significantly impacts decision quality.https://www.journal-fea.com/article_209547_4f6dd3f10dbb568b52aefcfcfb5295b1.pdfneutrosophic settopsisprocedural equityjudicial decision-making |
| spellingShingle | Edwin Bolívar Prado Calderón Cecilia Campaign Muñoz Leny Salomón Alejandro Montece Giler Leonso Dagoberto Torres Torres Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications neutrosophic set topsis procedural equity judicial decision-making |
| title | Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts |
| title_full | Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts |
| title_fullStr | Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts |
| title_full_unstemmed | Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts |
| title_short | Enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision-making within neutrosophic contexts |
| title_sort | enhancing procedural equity in judicial decision making within neutrosophic contexts |
| topic | neutrosophic set topsis procedural equity judicial decision-making |
| url | https://www.journal-fea.com/article_209547_4f6dd3f10dbb568b52aefcfcfb5295b1.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT edwinbolivarpradocalderon enhancingproceduralequityinjudicialdecisionmakingwithinneutrosophiccontexts AT ceciliacampaignmunozleny enhancingproceduralequityinjudicialdecisionmakingwithinneutrosophiccontexts AT salomonalejandromontecegiler enhancingproceduralequityinjudicialdecisionmakingwithinneutrosophiccontexts AT leonsodagobertotorrestorres enhancingproceduralequityinjudicialdecisionmakingwithinneutrosophiccontexts |