MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786486323 · doi:10.1109/ieem.2017.8290208

ETO bid solutions definition and selection using configuration models and a multi-criteria approach

2017· article· en· W2786486323 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsBiddingSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Operations researchEstimationMathematical optimizationOrder (exchange)Data miningArtificial intelligenceSystems engineeringMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a bidding process, bidders have to define and estimate potential bid solutions relevant to the customer's requirements. Afterward, based on several criteria (e.g. cost, due date), they have to select the most interesting solution to be sent as an offer to the customer. However, the lack of complete and accurate information makes the estimation imprecise and uncertain. In this paper, an approach is proposed to support the definition and the estimation of the potential Engineering To Order (ETO) technical bid solutions and the selection of the most interesting ones. The definition and the estimation of the potential bid solutions is supported by a new knowledge-based configuration model whereas the selection of the most interesting solutions is supported by a new multi-criteria decision making approach that takes into account uncertainties and imprecisions.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.118 · 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

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProduct Development and CustomizationFrench-language works237,207