Sharing the pie and distributing the reward: a case of bonus distribution among executives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Relevant criteria can be identified and used to partition and disaggregate a project's overall impact value into separate components to be evaluated independently under each criterion. Criteria weights can then be used to distribute the benefit of the joint project to its contributors. There are different interpretations of the criteria weights in different methods of benefit sharing. Project team members are motivated by the distribution of benefits. Criteria weights with different interpretations can be used as part of management incentives in setting up the joint project. In this work, different AHP type models are analyzed for a hypothetical case of bonus distribution to key executives. The implications of appropriate interpretations of criteria weights and local priorities are examined. Other sharing methods are discussed and analyzed. The method of bonus sharing based on the overall priorities of the contributions of all contributors is shown to produce resulting bonus shares that are always proportional to the actual contributions of the executives in the sharing set. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it