MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007530081 · doi:10.1139/l10-048

Hybrid fuzzy MADM project-selection model for diversified construction companies

2010· article· en· W2007530081 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mehdi Ravanshadnia, Hossein Rajaie, Hamid R. Abbasian

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingSelection (genetic algorithm)Project portfolio managementOperations researchPortfolioDecision modelFuzzy logicComputer scienceProject managementDiversification (marketing strategy)Decision-making modelsEngineeringBusinessSystems engineeringMarketingArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projects are the life blood of construction companies. Appropriate project selection is a crucial multicriteria decision that influences the future of such organizations. This paper presents a construction project-selection model that notes the influences of the current projects of a company or what is called the portfolio effect. The model applies a multistage fuzzy multi-attribute decision making (MADM) method to determine whether one should offer or not offer a tender. The final output of the model is the decision to be made about selecting a project for bidding considering three probable policies: (1) diversification, (2) concentration, or (3) neutral policy. The model has been applied in a case study. Practitioners perceived the model as a useful tool for their project-selection decisions. The results of a statistical experiment indicate significant results in accordance with the model’s comprehensiveness, applicability, reliability, and user-friendliness.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207