MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107488483 · doi:10.1109/tem.2010.2096560

Fuzzy Complexity Model for Enterprise Maintenance Projects

2011· article· en· W2107488483 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYardstickFuzzy logicRelation (database)Computer scienceComplexity managementGraphCyclomatic complexityMaintenance engineeringOperations researchMathematicsReliability engineeringData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringTheoretical computer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complexity measures can be used as a yardstick for budgeting, resource allocation, and planning in enterprise maintenance projects. Maintenance projects have two primary areas of complexity (i.e., technical and managerial aspects) that may not be measured precisely due to uncertain situations. In this study, a fuzzy graph-based model to measure the relative complexity of projects is presented that uses an aggregation operator to mitigate the conflict of experts' opinions on a complexity relation. Using a fuzzy relation matrix to represent the degree of assurance of complexity, the model maps a fuzzy graph into a scaled Cartesian diagram that depicts the relative degree of complexity among projects. An illustrative example for several maintenance projects is demonstrated to present the application of the model.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.158 · 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