MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405477243 · doi:10.24294/jipd9664

Methodological approaches in prioritizing municipal projects: A case study of the municipality of the holy capital (Makkah)

2024· article· en· W4405477243 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital cityCapital (architecture)Environmental planningBusinessGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to develop a robust prioritization model for municipal projects in the Holy Metropolitan Municipality (Makkah) to address the challenges of aligning short-term and long-term objectives. The research explores How multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques can prioritize municipal projects effectively while ensuring alignment with strategic goals and local needs. The methodology employs the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to ensure methodological rigor and data adequacy. Data were collected from key stakeholders, including municipal planners and community representatives, to enhance transparency and reliability. The model’s validity was assessed through latent factor analysis, confirming the relevance of identified criteria and factors. Results indicate that flood prevention projects are the highest priority (0.4246), followed by road projects (0.3532), park construction (0.1026), utility projects (0.0776), and digital transformation (0.0416). The study highlights that certain factors are critical for evaluating and prioritizing municipal projects. “Capacity and Demand” emerged as the most influential factor (0.5643), followed by “Strategic Alignment” (0.2013), “Project Interdependence” (0.1088), “Increasing Investment” (0.0950), and “Risk” (0.0306). These findings are significant as they offer a structured, data-driven approach to decision-making aligned with Saudi Vision 2030. The proposed model optimizes resource allocation and project selection, representing a pioneering effort to develop the first prioritization framework specifically tailored to Makkah’s unique municipal needs. Notably, this is the first study to establish a prioritization method specifically for Makkah’s municipal projects, providing valuable contributions to the field.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.062 · 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