Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the background of the current information age, the electronic and intelligent transformation of the bidding industry has become an inevitable trend, and the e-bidding model stands out and greatly improves people’s understanding of bidding. Aiming at the traditional e-bidding system, in order to solve the problem of the lack of the traditional e-bidding system that provides the bidding body with referable opinions, this study firstly constructs the e-bidding risk assessment indexes and realizes the optimization of the evaluation module of the system. Then the recommendation algorithm based on deep learning implements the optimization design of the e-header bidding system. This study constructs an optimized recommendation model by fusing knowledge graphs on the basis of deep learning. Then the e-tendering optimization system is designed according to the actual needs of e-tendering, combined with the recommendation model of this paper. The accuracy index ACC of this paper’s recommendation model is improved by about 3% on average compared with other best-performing recommendation models on each dataset, which verifies the excellent performance of this paper’s recommendation algorithm. This study constructs an optimized e-tendering system and proposes suggestions for the development and operation strategy of corporate e-tendering, contributing to the development of e-tendering transactions and the participation of social capital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".