MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409791059 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-417

Study on determining the weights of risk assessment indexes based on AHP hierarchical analysis for barracks facilities construction units in highland and alpine areas

2025· article· en· W4409791059 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvaluation and Optimization Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processEnvironmental scienceRisk analysis (engineering)GeographyComputer scienceEngineeringOperations researchBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the environment of plateau alpine region, the new model of substitute construction separating government construction and management functions has gained great development in barracks construction, which significantly improves the risk management level of barracks facilities to some extent.From the significance of barracks facilities construction guarantee in highland alpine area, the article proposes a risk identification framework for the substitute construction unit of Someplace facilities in highland alpine area based on the whole life cycle of engineering projects.Combined with the risk identification framework, the risk evaluation index system of the agency construction unit is constructed, and then the AHP hierarchical analysis method is introduced to solve the weight of the indexes, and combined with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the AHP-FCM evaluation model is constructed.A barracks facilities project in a camp area is selected as a case study, and Company T is used as the research object to carry out data analysis of its risk degree using the AHP-FCM model.In the construction of barracks facilities in highland and alpine areas, the biggest risk faced by the construction unit is the project implementation stage, the weight of which reaches 29.93%, and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of Company T's risk score is 3.182, which is between medium and large risks.Therefore, the agency needs to examine and check its own risk factors in time, in order to lay a solid foundation for ensuring the smooth implementation of the agency project of barracks facilities in highland alpine areas.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · 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