Genetic Algorithm of Network Graph Multi-Objective Optimization as an Instrument of Project Monitoring
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
Proper tracking of progress remains a vital part of modern project management, defining prospects of successfulimplementation of planned tasks. There are several popular concepts of project monitoring, such as logicalframework approach (LFA), earned value management (EVM), etc., and each of them depends on properlyoptimized network graph that represents dependences between project tasks. Article describes the features andproblems of multi-objective optimization in project management with reference to network graphs. Thesignificant role of network graph optimization for project monitoring systems is proved and the model ofmulti-objective optimization of the network graph on criterion functions of duration and project cost based onNSGA-II genetic algorithm is proposed as the main purpose of research. Model takes into account the reservesof time on a critical way of the network graph, possibility of decreasing the load of available resources at theexpense of time reserves on non-critical ways of the network graph, variety of used resources and options ofdelegation. One of its main advantages is quite low laboriousness of implementation, that depends on number ofnodes on the network graph of the project and on number of possible options of delegation for the project taskswith several alternatives of delegation. Model has been tested on sample project with real data and results havebeen analyzed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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