Development of a systematic approach to project selection for rural economic development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Susan Murray, Missouri University of Science & Technology Amanda Alpaugh, United States Air Force Karl Burgher, Missouri University of Science & Technology Barry Flachsbart, Missouri University of Science & Technology Cassie Elrod, Missouri University of Science & Technology Projects can be an effective methodology for community economic development. An easy-to-use and easy-to-implement systematic nine-step approach to project portfolio selection is presented. A version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a scoring methodology are used in the project selection process and then the Benefit-to-Cost Ratio Method is applied to determine the acceptability of the public projects. The approach takes into account the unique needs, possible limited subject expertise, and possible technological constraints of small municipalities. The approach was successfully beta-tested by a group of community members involved in developing a project portfolio of taxpayer-owned projects ranging in budget from three hundred to over one-million U.S. dollars and the results of this test are presented. Keywords: Analytical Hierarchy Process, Missouri, Systematic Approach, Economic Development
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".