MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989580318 · doi:10.1177/8756972819866577

A Method for Risk Response Planning in Project Portfolio Management

2019· article· en· W2989580318 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Ahmadi‐Javid, Seyed Hamed Fateminia, Hans Georg Gemünden

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Management Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject portfolio managementRisk analysis (engineering)PortfolioInterdependenceComputer scienceRisk managementRisk management planApplication portfolio managementProject management triangleProject risk managementKey (lock)Set (abstract data type)Project managementWork (physics)Portfolio optimizationOperations researchManagement scienceRisk assessmentBusinessEngineeringIT risk managementSystems engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the effectiveness of project portfolio risk management, a portfolio-wide approach is required. Implementing a proactive strategy, this article presents a method based on mathematical optimization to select an appropriate set of a priori local and global responses to address risks that threaten a project portfolio considering key factors, such as cost, budget, project preference weights, risk-event probabilities, interdependencies among work packages, and both occurrence and impact dependencies among risk events. As the proposed method has new features compared to the existing methods developed for a single project, it can also be used in project risk management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Management JournalSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207