"block","method","quantity","value"
"RQ1","ahp","apa","AHP derived priority weights for 4 criteria from a pairwise judgement matrix. 'cost' carried the highest weight (0.393)."
"RQ1","ahp","Weight [1]","0.3931"
"RQ1","ahp","Weight [2]","0.249"
"RQ1","ahp","Weight [3]","0.2105"
"RQ1","ahp","Weight [4]","0.1475"
"RQ1","ahp","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ1","ahp","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ1","ahp","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ1","ahp","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ2","anp","apa","ANP resolved the limiting priorities of a 4-node comparison network after 7 power-iteration step(s). 'cost' carried the highest limiting weight (0.389)."
"RQ2","anp","Weight [1]","0.3892"
"RQ2","anp","Weight [2]","0.254"
"RQ2","anp","Weight [3]","0.2109"
"RQ2","anp","Weight [4]","0.1459"
"RQ2","anp","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ2","anp","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ2","anp","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ2","anp","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ3","dematel","apa","DEMATEL classified 4 criteria by total relation. cost had the strongest net causal role (D - R = 0.893), and 2 of 4 criteria were net causes overall."
"RQ3","dematel","cost: D","2.2317"
"RQ3","dematel","catering: D","1.2602"
"RQ3","dematel","transport: D","1.152"
"RQ3","dematel","capacity: D","1.3162"
"RQ3","dematel","cost: R","1.3386"
"RQ3","dematel","catering: R","1.7765"
"RQ3","dematel","transport: R","1.5357"
"RQ3","dematel","capacity: R","1.3093"
"RQ3","dematel","cost: Prominence","3.5703"
"RQ3","dematel","catering: Prominence","3.0367"
"RQ3","dematel","transport: Prominence","2.6877"
"RQ3","dematel","capacity: Prominence","2.6255"
"RQ3","dematel","cost: Relation","0.893"
"RQ3","dematel","catering: Relation","-0.5163"
"RQ3","dematel","transport: Relation","-0.3837"
"RQ3","dematel","capacity: Relation","0.007"
"RQ4","topsis","apa","TOPSIS ranked 5 alternatives on 4 criteria. Harbour Suite ranked first with a closeness coefficient of 0.640."
"RQ4","topsis","Score [1]","0.6395"
"RQ4","topsis","Score [2]","0.5576"
"RQ4","topsis","Score [3]","0.5227"
"RQ4","topsis","Score [4]","0.4974"
"RQ4","topsis","Score [5]","0.4589"
"RQ4","topsis","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ4","topsis","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ4","topsis","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ4","topsis","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ4","topsis","Rank [5]","5"
"RQ5","vikor","apa","VIKOR ranked 5 alternatives on 4 criteria (v = 0.50). Harbour Suite ranked first with a VIKOR index of 0.000."
"RQ5","vikor","Score [1]","1"
"RQ5","vikor","Score [2]","0.6043"
"RQ5","vikor","Score [3]","0.382"
"RQ5","vikor","Score [4]","0.3412"
"RQ5","vikor","Score [5]","0.122"
"RQ5","vikor","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ5","vikor","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ5","vikor","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ5","vikor","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ5","vikor","Rank [5]","5"
"RQ6","moora","apa","MOORA (ratio system) ranked 5 alternatives on 4 criteria. Harbour Suite ranked first with a net ratio score of 0.154."
"RQ6","moora","Score [1]","0.1545"
"RQ6","moora","Score [2]","0.1386"
"RQ6","moora","Score [3]","0.1267"
"RQ6","moora","Score [4]","0.1176"
"RQ6","moora","Score [5]","0.1144"
"RQ6","moora","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ6","moora","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ6","moora","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ6","moora","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ6","moora","Rank [5]","5"
"RQ7","smart","apa","SMART ranked 5 alternatives on 4 criteria. Harbour Suite ranked first with a weighted utility value of 0.610."
"RQ7","smart","Score [1]","0.6103"
"RQ7","smart","Score [2]","0.5406"
"RQ7","smart","Score [3]","0.4954"
"RQ7","smart","Score [4]","0.4758"
"RQ7","smart","Score [5]","0.4323"
"RQ7","smart","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ7","smart","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ7","smart","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ7","smart","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ7","smart","Rank [5]","5"
"RQ8","waspas","apa","WASPAS ranked 5 alternatives on 4 criteria (lambda = 0.50, blending the weighted sum and weighted product models). Harbour Suite ranked first with a joint measure of 0.823."
"RQ8","waspas","Score [1]","0.8226"
"RQ8","waspas","Score [2]","0.7849"
"RQ8","waspas","Score [3]","0.7844"
"RQ8","waspas","Score [4]","0.7807"
"RQ8","waspas","Score [5]","0.748"
"RQ8","waspas","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ8","waspas","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ8","waspas","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ8","waspas","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ8","waspas","Rank [5]","5"
"RQ9","promethee","apa","PROMETHEE II ranked 5 alternatives on 4 criteria using the usual preference function. Harbour Suite ranked first with a net flow of 0.165."
"RQ9","promethee","Score [1]","0.1651"
"RQ9","promethee","Score [2]","0.0812"
"RQ9","promethee","Score [3]","-0.0091"
"RQ9","promethee","Score [4]","-0.1126"
"RQ9","promethee","Score [5]","-0.1245"
"RQ9","promethee","Rank [1]","1"
"RQ9","promethee","Rank [2]","2"
"RQ9","promethee","Rank [3]","3"
"RQ9","promethee","Rank [4]","4"
"RQ9","promethee","Rank [5]","5"
"RQ10","electre","apa","ELECTRE I built the outranking relation for 5 alternatives on 4 criteria (concordance threshold 0.70, discordance threshold 0.30). The kernel (non-dominated) set contains 4 alternative(s): Old Mill, Civic Hall, Parkview, Harbour Suite."
"RQ10","electre","Harbour Suite: Outranks","1"
"RQ10","electre","Old Mill: Outranks","0"
"RQ10","electre","Civic Hall: Outranks","0"
"RQ10","electre","Parkview: Outranks","0"
"RQ10","electre","Riverside: Outranks","0"
"RQ10","electre","Harbour Suite: OutrankedBy","0"
"RQ10","electre","Old Mill: OutrankedBy","0"
"RQ10","electre","Civic Hall: OutrankedBy","0"
"RQ10","electre","Parkview: OutrankedBy","0"
"RQ10","electre","Riverside: OutrankedBy","1"
"RQ10","electre","Harbour Suite: Score","1"
"RQ10","electre","Old Mill: Score","0"
"RQ10","electre","Civic Hall: Score","0"
"RQ10","electre","Parkview: Score","0"
"RQ10","electre","Riverside: Score","-1"
"RQ10","electre","Harbour Suite: Rank","1"
"RQ10","electre","Old Mill: Rank","2"
"RQ10","electre","Civic Hall: Rank","2"
"RQ10","electre","Parkview: Rank","2"
"RQ10","electre","Riverside: Rank","5"
