Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis, starting from the characteristics of the construction project, deploys the combining method of normative and empirical research. According to integrated Risk Management Paradigm, the thesis sums up the overall framework of the construction project system and proposes the evaluation index system of the risk analysis based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In addition, the paper puts forward a comprehensive risk evaluation model and makes clear the relative importance of various risk factors. By so doing, it provides some thoughts for the construction projects’ management and evaluation. Key words: Construction Project; Risk Management; Risk Evaluation; Analytic Hierarchy Process Resume: A partir des caracteristiques du projet de construction, cette these utilise la methode de combinaison de recherches normatives et de recherches empiriques. Selon le Paradigme de management de risques, cette these resume le cadre global du systeme de projet de construction et propose le systeme d’indexation de l’evaluation des analyses des riques, base sur le Processus hierarchique analytique. En plus, cet artcile met en avant un modele d’evaluation de risques globaux et clarifie l’importance relative des differents facteurs de risque. En agissant de la sorte, il fournit quelques idees concernant la gestion et l’evaluation des projets de construction. Mots-Cles: Projet de construction; Gestion des risques; evaluation des risques; Processus hierarchique analytique 摘 要：本文從建設工程項目的特點出發，採用規範性研究和實證性研究相結合的方法，根據集成風險管理 範式，總結了建設工程項目風險管理系統的整體構架，運用層次分析法提出了建設專案工程風險分析的評價指標體系，並構建了建設專案工程風險的綜合評價模型，得出了判斷各個風險因素相對重要性的結論，為建 設工程項目的管理和評價提供了一些依據。 關鍵字：建設項目； 風險管理； 風險評價； 層次分析法
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".