MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074734012 · doi:10.1109/icime.2010.5477934

Comparative studies on the significance of difference between China state-owned and non-state-owned contractors within industry segmentation

2010· article· en· W2074734012 on OpenAlexaff
Wenzhou Wang, Xinfa Yan, Huijun Yang, Wang Jin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvaluation and Optimization Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWilcoxon signed-rank testChinaRanking (information retrieval)Industrial organizationState ownedState (computer science)Significant differenceConstruction industryBusinessRank (graph theory)Operations managementComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsMarket economyArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceConstruction engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the ranking statistics of ENR China Top 60 Contractors from 2006 to 2009, this paper is concentrating on the significance of difference between state-owned and non-state-owned contractors in various industries and how this significance of difference changed from year to year, using Wilcoxon-type rank-sum test. The research shows that the state-owned contractors were superior in transportation, water supply, industrial process and other 3 industries. Moreover, the advantage in certain industries is expanding. Finally, the author gives some explanations for this phenomenon. This research makes contribution to the further study on the cause of the difference and effectiveness of China building industry policies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation and Optimization ModelsFrench-language works237,207