Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is an important topic to organize a team efficiently and keep it in a good state. In most cases, administrators try to avoid critical members. With this requirement, administrators prefer that their team members are able to be good at many things and expert in one (GMEO). However, that too many people are “good at many things” is definitely a waste. Role-based collaboration and its environments-classes, agents, roles, groups, and objects (E-CARGO) model are a good means to provide modeling and solutions to such a challenging problem. This paper formalizes the problem of GMEO into GMEO-1 (the fundamental form of GMEO) with the support of E-CARGO, clarifies two different forms of GMEO-1 and provides two highly practical solutions. The proposed solutions are verified by comparing with initial solutions using a linear programming solver, i.e., the IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Platform. The contributions of this paper are a thorough investigation of GMEO-1 that has no exact solutions even for a small group (e.g., ten people) and is normally managed by highly qualified administrators. The proposed solutions provide digital results with algorithms that form a solid foundation for decision making in dealing with similar issues.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".