The multi‐actor, multi‐criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Metaresearch
- Consensus categories
- Metaresearch
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.899
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.983
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Abstract In this paper the multi‐actor multi‐criteria analysis (MAMCA) method to evaluate transport projects is presented. This evaluation method specifically focuses on the inclusion of qualitative as well as quantitative criteria with their relative importance, defined by the multiple stakeholders, into one comprehensive evaluation process in order to facilitate the decision making process by the different stakeholders. The MAMCA methodology is introduced by an overview of other evaluation methods for transport projects in the past and is illustrated by means of two practical cases. The introduction will lead us to the theoretical conception of the MAMCA method where we draw the attention to the proven usefulness of the MAMCA for the evaluation of transport projects and the inclusion of different kinds of stakeholders, individuals as well as groups, into the evaluation process.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Transportation
- Topic
- Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- not available
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Process (computing)Management scienceComputer scienceProcess managementOrder (exchange)Evaluation methodsInclusion (mineral)Risk analysis (engineering)Operations researchEngineeringBusinessSociology
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes