Multi-mode resource constrained project scheduling problem along with contractor selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In real-world environments, selecting the right contractor is an important issue which considerably influences completion time, total cost and quality of performing the project. This paper deals with the multi-mode resource constrained project scheduling problem (MRCPSP) and contractor selection (CS) in an integrated manner. In fact, each activity is assigned to a contractor, an execution mode is selected for each activity, and the start/finish times of activities are determined. This paper presents a bi-objective optimization model to deal with MRCPSP-CS, aiming to minimize the total cost and completion time of the project, simultaneously. Then, four multi-objective decision making (MODM) techniques are used to solve the proposed model. Since none of MODM techniques dominates other ones, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used to assess the performance of MODM techniques, confirming that MCGP-U outranks other ones. Finally, the augmented ε-Constraint method is used to solve some test problems, and perform sensitivity analysis on the number of contractors. Sensitivity analyses show that by increasing the number of available contractors, the Pareto front is significantly improved, and the Number of Pareto-optimal Solutions (NPS) increases. This helps decision maker(s) make appropriate decisions in a more flexible manner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".