MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387377576 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v3i1.312

Application Of The Ahp Method In Decision Support System For Security Recruitment

2023· article· en· W4387377576 on OpenAlexaff
Agung Kurniawan, Achmad Fauzi, Siswan Syahputra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processOfficerSelection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)Computer scienceProductivityProcess managementBusinessOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PT Perkebunan Nusantara II (PTPN II) Sei Semayang, a state-owned enterprise (BUMN) engaged in palm oil and sugarcane production. Security officers play a crucial role in maintaining the company's security and productivity. Currently, the security officer recruitment process remains conventional, relying on subjective assessments based on several criteria. The aim of this study is to introduce a more structured, transparent, and objective approach to security officer recruitment. By implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, decisions in selecting prospective security officers can be made based on predetermined criterion weights. AHP enables decision-makers to identify, compare, and prioritize relevant criteria, addressing the complexity of selecting candidates who fit the established criteria. Through this approach, the study seeks to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the security officer selection process, reduce the risk of errors in candidate selection, and improve overall company performance and security. It is hoped that the application of the AHP method in the decision support system for security officer recruitment at PTPN II Sei Semayang will assist the company in optimizing the selection process and supporting more data-driven decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicManagement and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207