Optimizing Organizational Structures with Artificial Intelligence: Algorithm Design and Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of globalization and information technology advancement, organizations are confronted with the dual challenges of efficiently allocating resources and promptly addressing internal conflicts.The optimization of organizational structures is identified not only as a strategic measure to enhance competitive advantage but also as a necessary approach to improve decision-making quality and organizational adaptability.This study explores the application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in optimizing organizational structures, focusing specifically on the intelligent allocation of human resources and the intelligent identification and resolution mechanisms for internal conflicts.Existing research shows a notable deficiency in resource allocation and conflict resolution, particularly lacking consideration of trust network within organizations and analysis of adaptability to dynamic changes.Addressing these issues, a model based on the fuzzy cerebellar model articulation controller (FCMAC) for the optimization of human resource allocation is proposed.This model is capable of dynamically adjusting strategies in response to the evolving demands of the organization.Concurrently, an intelligent framework for identifying and resolving internal conflicts, which incorporates trust network, has been developed.By quantifying trust relationships, the framework aims to enhance the accuracy of decision-making and the coordination within the organization.Findings suggest that these methodologies significantly improve the efficiency of organizational resource allocation and effectively reduce conflict situations, thereby enhancing overall work efficiency and performance.This research not only offers a new perspective on the role of AI in optimizing organizational decisions but also provides practical solutions for management practices, crucial for aiding organizations to adapt to rapidly changing external environments and enhance their competitiveness.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".