Hybrid fuzzy system dynamics model for analyzing the impacts of interrelated risk and opportunity events on project contingency
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
Traditional risk analysis techniques are ineffective for capturing the dynamic causal interactions and subjective uncertainties involved in assessing risk and opportunity events since they treat risks independently and rely on the availability of sufficient historical data. In this paper, a hybrid fuzzy system dynamics (FSD) model is developed to analyze the impacts of interrelated and interacting risk and opportunity events on work package cost to determine work package and project contingencies using expert judgement and subjective assessment. A fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method is employed to structure and analyze the causal interactions among risk and opportunity events. This paper provides the following contributions: (1) a systematic risk assessment and prioritization procedure; (2) a structured method for defining the dynamic causal relationships among risk and opportunity events and quantifying their impact on work package and project contingencies using FSD; and (3) a method for representing linguistic variables and applying fuzzy arithmetic in FSD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it