MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021216055 · doi:10.5539/cis.v2n1p188

Stochastic Programming Models and Hybrid Intelligent Algorithm for Unbalanced Bidding Problem

2009· article· en· W2021216055 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiddingComputer scienceMathematical optimizationStochastic programmingGenetic algorithmArtificial neural networkGenetic programmingValue (mathematics)Order (exchange)Hybrid algorithm (constraint satisfaction)Stochastic optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsConstraint programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expected value model and the chance-constrained programming model for unbalanced bidding problem are established on the condition that quantities of each activity are stochastic variables and the total project is finished smoothly in this paper. These models can make the unbalanced bidding price more reasonable and applicable. In order to solve these models, stochastic simulation, neural network and genetic algorithm are integrated to produce a hybrid intelligent algorithm. Finally, a numerical example is given to illustrate its effectiveness.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.283 · 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