MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622382054 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2017.6.001

A state-of-art survey on project selection using MCDM techniques

2017· article· en· W2622382054 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSmart Systems and Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple-criteria decision analysisSelection (genetic algorithm)State (computer science)Management scienceComputer scienceOperations researchMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project selection is considered as the first essential part of project portfolio management. Project selection is also considered as a process to evaluate each project idea and chooses the one with the biggest priority. Project selection plays an essential role in the entire life cycle of different projects. This paper presents a survey for project selection using multiple criteria decision making techniques. The study considers 60 papers from over the period 1980-2017. The results of the survey have indicated that integration of Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and analytical hierarchy process/analytical network process was the most popular techniques for project selection followed 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 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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.299 · 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