Project Delivery System Selection under Uncertainty: Multicriteria Multilevel Decision Aid Model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting an optimal project delivery system is a critical task that owners should do to ensure project success. This selection is a complex decision-making process. The complexity arises from the uncertain or not well-defined parameters and/or the multiple criteria structure of such decisions. In this study, a decision aid model using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) coupled with rough approximation concepts is developed to assist the owners. The selection criteria are determined by studying a number of benchmarks. The model ranks the alternative delivery systems by considering both benchmark results and owner’s opinion. In interval AHP, an optimization procedure is performed via obtaining the upper and the lower linear programming models to determine the interval priorities for alternative project delivery systems. In cases having incomparable alternatives, which is the most likely case in uncertain decision making, the model uses rough set-based measures to reduce the number of decision criteria to a subset, which is able to fully rank the alternatives. To illustrate the applicability and usefulness of this methodology, a real world case study will be demonstrated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it