Ranking of building maintenance contractors using multi-criteria decision making methods and an artificial neural network model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building Maintenance plays an important role throughout the building lifecycle from devising conceptual plans to the end. Due to the high cost of building maintenance and the direct impact of maintenance effectiveness on the quality of life of building occupants, special attention must be devoted. One of the most important issues in this field is building maintenance contractor selection. This issue becomes even more critical in public buildings, such as hospitals, offices, and military centers. The purpose of this study is to present a method that can be used to select the contractor in such a way that the response robustness is high and the employed method is the most accurate one among other similar methods. To do this, the contractors are ranked by 7 multicriteria decision-making methods. Then, the Spearman correlation coefficients are obtained for each pair of methods. When there is a significant difference between the outcomes of the methods, the output of each method is compared with the output of the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model. The method with the least difference with the neural network output is taken as the superior method. After selecting the best method, a robustness analysis is performed on it to verify the stability of the answer. The proposed model is implemented on a real case study. Statistical analysis shows that the implementation of this method has increased the satisfaction of the residents.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".