MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086865785 · doi:10.3846/13923730.2012.671279

UTILIZING RANDOM PERFORMANCE RECORDS IN THE BEST VALUE MODEL / ATSITIKTINE TVARKA PARINKTŲ VEIKLOS EFEKTYVUMO DUOMENŲ NAUDOJIMAS GERIAUSIOS VERTĖS MODELYJE

2012· article· en· W2086865785 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Civil Engineering and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceOperations researchOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most construction agencies have a quality management system in order to control and manage the quality of their final product. Once the project is over, the testing results are kept in archives in which they are rarely re-visited or utilized. Quality testing results carry much information about the contractor performance that could be useful during the contractor evaluation/selection process. Previous attempts to implement the Best Value (BV) used the average performance records as the expected performance, which was utilized to evaluate contractors. The objective of this research is to develop, based on random data obtained from the contractor's performance records, a methodology that provides decision makers with the level of confidence or risk associated with the contractor selection using the BV model. Simulation technique is used to develop the BV model and analysis. Field performance data have been used to obtain the Percentage Defective, which indicates the contractor's performance in the BV model. The analysis of data indicates that performance follows a normal distribution. Sensitivity analysis of the BV model illustrates the significance of the weights in the BV model, which demands special attention when selecting the parameters’ weights. The developed methodology provides the decision makers with the confidence and risk associated with their selection decision. Santrauka Dauguma statybos imonių galutinio produkto kokybę kontroliuoja ir valdo naudodamos kokybės vadybos sistemą. Projektui pasibaigus, patikrinimo rezultatai laikomi archyvuose ir retai peržiūrimi arba naudojami. Kokybės patikrinimo rezultatuose daug informacijos apie rangovo veiklos efektyvumą, kuri praverstų vertinant (renkantis) rangovą. Anksčiau mėginant diegti geriausios vertės (GV) modelį, veiklos efektyvumas buvo numatomas pagal vidutinius veiklos efektyvumo duomenis ir pagal tai būdavo vertinami rangovai. Šio tyrimo tikslas – pasitelkus atsitiktine tvarka atrinktus duomenis iš įrašų apie rangovo veiklos efektyvumą, sukurti metodiką, kuri sprendimus priimantiems asmenims suteikia pasitikėjimo arba mažina riziką, susijusią su rangovų atranka pagal GV modelį. Kuriant GV modelį ir atliekant analię taikomas imitacijos metodas. Naudojant faktinius veiklos duomenis apie efektyvumą buvo nustatyta procentinė defektų dalis (angl. Percentage Defective), kuri GV modelyje rodo rangovo veiklos efektyvumą. Duomenų analizė rodo, kad veiklos efektyvumas nenukrypsta nuo normaliojo skirstinio. GV modelio jautrumo analizė rodo, kad jame svarbūs reikšmingumai, taigi parametru reikšmingumus reikia rinktis itin atidžiai. Sukurta metodika sprendimus priimantiems asmenims suteikia pasitikėjimo ir mažina riziką, susijusią su pasirinkimo sprendimais.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.241 · 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