Journal of
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics
HOME   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   RELATED PUBLICATIONS   |   SEARCH     CONTACT US
 



ISSN: 1690-4524 (Online)


Peer Reviewed Journal via three different mandatory reviewing processes, since 2006, and, from September 2020, a fourth mandatory peer-editing has been added.

Indexed by
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)Benefits of supplying DOAJ with metadata:
  • DOAJ's statistics show more than 900 000 page views and 300 000 unique visitors a month to DOAJ from all over the world.
  • Many aggregators, databases, libraries, publishers and search portals collect our free metadata and include it in their products. Examples are Scopus, Serial Solutions and EBSCO.
  • DOAJ is OAI compliant and once an article is in DOAJ, it is automatically harvestable.
  • DOAJ is OpenURL compliant and once an article is in DOAJ, it is automatically linkable.
  • Over 95% of the DOAJ Publisher community said that DOAJ is important for increasing their journal's visibility.
  • DOAJ is often cited as a source of quality, open access journals in research and scholarly publishing circles.
JSCI Supplies DOAJ with Meta Data
, Academic Journals Database, and Google Scholar


Listed in
Cabell Directory of Publishing Opportunities and in Ulrich’s Periodical Directory


Re-Published in
Academia.edu
(A Community of about 40.000.000 Academics)


Honorary Editorial Advisory Board's Chair
William Lesso (1931-2015)

Editor-in-Chief
Nagib C. Callaos


Sponsored by
The International Institute of
Informatics and Systemics

www.iiis.org
 

Editorial Advisory Board

Quality Assurance

Editors

Journal's Reviewers
Call for Special Articles
 

Description and Aims

Submission of Articles

Areas and Subareas

Information to Contributors

Editorial Peer Review Methodology

Integrating Reviewing Processes


Philosophy and Cybernetics: Questions and Issues
Thomas Marlowe, Fr. Joseph R. Laracy
(pages: 1-23)

Reconceiving Cybernetics in Light of Thomistic Realism
John T. Laracy, Fr. Joseph R. Laracy
(pages: 24-39)

Nascent Cybernetics, Humanism, and Some Scientistic Challenges
Zachary M. Mabee
(pages: 40-52)

Kant, Cybernetics, and Cybersecurity: Integration and Secure Computation
Jon K. Burmeister, Ziyuan Meng
(pages: 53-78)

Interplay Between Cybernetics and Philosophy as an Essential Condition for Learning
Maria Jakubik
(pages: 79-97)

Towards a General Theory of Change: A Cybernetic and Philosophical Understanding
Gianfranco Minati
(pages: 98-109)

Artificial Intelligence and Human Intellect
Víctor Velarde-Mayol
(pages: 110-127)

The Philosophy of Cybernetics
Jeremy Horne
(pages: 128-159)

Cybernetics and Philosophy in a Translation of Oedipus the King and Its Performance
Ekaterini Nikolarea
(pages: 160-190)

Linguistic Philosophy of Cyberspace
Rusudan Makhachashvili, Ivan Semenist
(pages: 191-207)

Systems Philosophy and Cybernetics
Nagib Callaos
(pages: 208-284)


 

Abstracts

 


ABSTRACT


Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Ranking Non-Parametric Stochastic Rainfall and Streamflow Models

Masengo Ilunga


Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used in the selection of categories of non-parametric stochastic models for hydrological data generation and its formulation is based on pairwise comparisons of models. These models or techniques are obtained from a recent study initiated by the Water Research Commission of South Africa (WRC) and were compared predominantly based on their capability to extrapolate data beyond the range of historic hydrological data. The different categories of models involved in the selection process were: wavelet (A), reordering (B), K-nearest neighbor (C), kernel density (D) and bootstrap (E). In the AHP formulation, criteria for the selection of techniques are: “ability for data to preserve historic characteristics”, “ability to generate new hydrological data”, “scope of applicability”, “presence of negative data generated” and “user friendliness”. The pairwise comparisons performed through AHP showed that the overall order of selection (ranking) of models was D, C, A, B and C. The weights of these techniques were found to be 27.21%, 24.3 %, 22.15 %, 13.89 % and 11.80 % respectively. Hence, bootstrap category received the highest preference while nearest neighbor received the lowest preference when all selection criteria are taken into consideration.

Full Text