Use of Pairwise Comparison Method in Road-and-Bridge Tenders
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
The paper is a brief presentation of the pairwise comparison (PC) method, implemented with the use of the Concluder, a modern tool for PC analysis which is being developed by Professor Waldermar Koczkodaj and which is used for comparing tenders in the road-and-bridge construction industry. The paper discusses the tender criteria which are adopted for tenders in this industry. It addresses the issue of developing the relevant weights while using one of the functions of the expert system, i.e. the function which relies on the opinions of the experts familiar with a given matter, who however not always present the same views. Once the experts’ opinions have been collected, they can be “agreed” while using the PC method. Diversification of the criteria is particularly important from the point of view of improvement of the quality of the services offered by the road-and-bridge construction industry in Poland, since in to-date practice the price has been the only or the dominant criterion. The paper contains examples (in terms of numbers) of analysis of tender criteria where the price was not the only criterion, which is the starting point for further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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