MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599820070 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v8n2p86

Inverse Optimization Method of Resource Allocation with Consideration of Advantage Structure

2017· article· en· W2599820070 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCompetency Development and Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceInverseMathematical optimizationCompetence (human resources)Inverse problemOperations researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research collects competence items of informal questionnaire by expert interview method, analyzes the results qualitatively and quantitatively and forms formal questionnaire. Through statistical analysis and AMOS modeling, the research obtains workers’ competence model and validates competence model. An identification method of individual advantage characters according competency indicator system is built up relying on programming analysis and parameter optimization. We build the optimization model and its inverse optimization model, starting from the original optimization model, adjusting parameter value as small as possible, the conventional optimization model translated into the inverse model by the principle of duality. A calculation example is used to make sure the method is reliability and feasibility.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.338 · 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