A new hybrid method for selecting the best project manager: TODIM-FSE and Behavioral TOPSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to present the application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods to the process of recruiting candidates for the position of project manager, considering aspects of the decision maker's preferences in uncertain and risk scenarios. Applied, descriptive and experimental, made up of the combined employment TODIM-FSE methods for multi-criteria classification of available candidates, and the method Behavioral TOPSIS, to choose the ideal project manager. The hybrid application of the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods TODIM-FSE, method based on Prospect Theory, and Behavioral TOPSIS, which considers the concept of loss aversion of Economic Behavior, is essentially innovative. When using TODIM-FSE and Behavioral TOPSIS, it was verified the explicit incorporation of the risk profile of the decision maker - aggressive, neutral, or conservative - in the context of aversion or propensity to the risks associated with the management of a project. Through the personal recruiting process from a large Brazilian organization, the possibility of adopting the hybrid model resulting from the combination of the two methods in a real situation was validated. Such validation allowed us to conclude that the candidates' classifications and choices, previously normally accepted, were at odds with the profile and risk propensity of the decision makers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".