Multi-modal recommender system for predicting project manager performance within a competency-based framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of performance using competencies within a structured framework holds significant importance across various professional domains, particularly in roles like project manager. Typically, this assessment process, overseen by senior evaluators, involves scoring competencies based on data gathered from interviews, completed forms, and evaluation programs. However, this task is tedious and time-consuming, and requires the expertise of qualified professionals. Moreover, it is compounded by the inconsistent scoring biases introduced by different evaluators. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to automatically predict competency scores, thereby facilitating the assessment of project managers' performance. Initially, we performed data fusion to compile a comprehensive dataset from various sources and modalities, including demographic data, profile-related data, and historical competency assessments. Subsequently, NLP techniques were used to pre-process text data. Finally, recommender systems were explored to predict competency scores. We compared four different recommender system approaches: content-based filtering, demographic filtering, collaborative filtering, and hybrid filtering. Using assessment data collected from 38 project managers, encompassing scores across 67 different competencies, we evaluated the performance of each approach. Notably, the content-based approach yielded promising results, achieving a precision rate of 81.03%. Furthermore, we addressed the challenge of cold-starting, which in our context involves predicting scores for either a new project manager lacking competency data or a newly introduced competency without historical records. Our analysis revealed that demographic filtering achieved an average precision of 54.05% when dealing with new project managers. In contrast, content-based filtering exhibited remarkable performance, achieving a precision of 85.79% in predicting scores for new competencies. These findings underscore the potential of recommender systems in competency assessment, thereby facilitating more effective performance evaluation process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".