Hierarchical Aggregate Assessment of Multi-Level Teams Using Competency Ontologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is complex to assess multi-level hierarchical teams, because the solution needs to organize their rapid dynamic adaptation to perform operational tasks, and train team members without sufficient competencies, skills and experience. Assessment also reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the whole team and each team member, which provides opportunities for their further growth in the future. Assessment of the work of teams needs external knowledge and processing methods. Therefore, this study proposed to use ontological approach to improve the assessment of multi-level hierarchical teams, because ontology integrated domain knowledge with relevant competencies of positions and levels in the hierarchical teams. Information on competencies of applicants was acquired in the portfolio analysis. After subdividing the hierarchical teams, appropriate ontologies and Web-services were used to obtain assessment results and competence improvement recommendations for the teams at various sublevels. The step-by-step team assessment method was described, which used elements of semantic similarity between different information objects to match applicants and equipment with team positions. This method could be used as a component of integrated multi-criteria decision-making and was targeted at specific cases of user tasks. The set of assessment criteria was pre-determined by tasks, and built based on domain knowledge. However, particular criterion were dynamic, and changed along with environmental at different time points.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".