MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W829931006

How to Support Government Procurement by a Pairwise Comparisons Model

2013· article· en· W829931006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Waldemar W. Koczkodaj, W. O. Mackasey, I. Smolewski, Ryszard Tadeusiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueRepoS (Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczo-Humanistycznego w Siedlcach) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementPairwise comparisonAgency (philosophy)Government procurementGovernment (linguistics)BusinessProcess (computing)Process managementRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchComputer scienceEngineeringMarketingArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrates how a government procurement process could be improved by the pairwise comparisons method. A case study, related to assessment of project proposals is used for demonstration purpose. The project proposals were requested by a Canadian government agency to assess the environmental and public safety hazards of abandoned mines. However, the presented model is applicable (with easy-to-implement modifications) to any other case of government procurement.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepoS (Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczo-Humanistycznego w Siedlcach)Same topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207