An enhanced multi-objective optimization approach for risk allocation in public–private partnership projects: a case study of Malaysia
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
The decision making for risk allocation problems in public–private partnership (PPP) projects is a vital process that directly affects the timeliness, cost, and quality of the project. Fair risk allocation is a vital factor to achieve success in the implementation of these projects. It is essential for private and public sectors to apply efficient risk allocation approaches to experience a more effective process of agreement arbitration and to reduce the appearance of dispute during the concession period. The aim of this study is to develop an optimization approach to enhance risk allocation process in PPP projects. The shared risks in projects are identified through comprehensive literature review and questionnaire survey obtained from Malaysian professionals involved in PPP projects. Objective functions are then developed to minimize the total time and cost of the project and maximize the quality while satisfying risk threshold constraints. The combinatorial nature of the risk allocation problem describes a multi-objective situation that can be simulated as a knapsack problem (KP). The formulation of the KP is described and solved applying genetic algorithm (GA). Due to the flexibility of GA, the results are Pareto Optimal solutions that describe the combinations of risk percentages for shared risks in PPP projects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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