MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406868366 · doi:10.62411/faith.3048-3719-59

The AI and Quantum Era: Transforming Project Management Practices

2025· article· en· W4406868366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Aliyev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Future Artificial Intelligence and Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementComputer scienceEngineering managementKnowledge managementBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project management is changing drastically due to the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing (QC), redefining traditional methods. This study explores Quantum AI (QAI) and AI-driven solutions to tackle enduring issues, including resource inefficiencies, schedule delays, and budget overruns. These technologies significantly enhance project outcomes by leveraging predictive analytics, dynamic scheduling, and high-dimensional optimization. A comparative analysis of prominent case studies, including the Crossrail Project, East Side Access, and the Montreal Olympics, highlights the superior performance of AI and QAI techniques compared to conventional methods. The study shows that QAI can cut delays by 60%, optimize resource allocation with 83% efficiency, and eliminate cost overruns by up to 40% using Monte Carlo simulations and Failure Mode Effects Analysis. These results demonstrate that quantum artificial intelligence is a ground-breaking tool for handling intricate, interconnected project settings. Additionally, this study emphasizes how QAI is scalable and applicable across industries, especially in fields that need real-time optimization and high-dimensional data processing. The proposed hybrid quantum-classical paradigm provides practical solutions and sets a benchmark for efficiency, scalability, and risk mitigation in project management.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Future Artificial Intelligence and TechnologiesSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207