MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090413280 · doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.247

The Predictability of Fast-Track Projects

2011· article· en· W2090413280 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

VenueProcedia Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityTracking (education)Variance (accounting)Computer scienceQuality (philosophy)Operations researchEngineeringStatisticsBusinessMathematicsAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast-Tracking to accelerate, overlap or compress schedules has an impact on project predictability in terms of achieving the planned objectives (time, cost, and quality). Predictability plays an important role in project success. Some studies focused on the fast-tracking impact on each objective; however, no research directly addressed the relationship between fast-tracking and predictability of the project's objectives. This paper investigates the relationship between fast-tracking and predictability with regard to success in meeting the project's planned objectives. A literature review was used. Significant findings in the study are the confirmations of the literature about the impact of fast-tracking on project predictability. This impact is that fast-tracking may lead to less predictability for the project's outcomes. The research results emphasize the need for further investigation of the relationship between fast-tracking technique and the project's predictability indices (cost variance, time variance and quality variance) in order to a achieve better understanding of the relationship and improve predictability.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.200 · 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