Project manager selection based on project manager competency model: PCA–MCDM Ap-proach
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
Personnel selection is one of the most important problems that organizations have to deal with. Competent personnel is one of the key factors for the success of organizations. Project manager selection due to special requirements is significantly important. A project manager must have the ability of managing costs, time and resources through the optimistic way. Furthermore he/she has to own general management skills and benefit from adequate information about the project context. Project managers in petroleum industry carry very important duties than other project managers. In this research, we try to develop a model in order to select a project manager for petroleum industry. The proposed model is based on multi criteria decision making and a statistical method named principle component analysis (PCA). The methodology considers all of the important criteria and benefit from an experienced expert panel in order to extract the weights of the criteria. Also a numerical example demonstrates the function of the model and is verified by VIKOR method.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it