A hybrid of Delphi, AHP and TOPSIS Methods for project portfolio management
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
Due to the importance and complexity of the portfolio management issue, over 100 different techniques have already been presented. In general, the final result of these tools is to create a prioritized list of the projects that must be selected for allocating resources. The use of financial strategies may be misleading in some cases, and it is necessary to combine these methods with other methods such as strategic approaches in order to guarantee a balanced portfolio toward the organizational strategies. On the other, categorizing projects into different baskets allows the organizations to select, evaluate and prioritize the projects in a subset using a set of similar criteria and techniques. In this article, by choosing agriculture sector as a case study, an attempt has been made to study the evaluation, ranking and management of projects with investment classifying strategy of the projects using Delphi, TOPSIS and AHP methods. The results reveal that in similar cases we can use the presented model by determining the type of activity and investment and localization of the indexes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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