Comparative performance analysis of European airports by means of extended data envelopment analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Data envelopment analysis (DEA) has become an established approach for analyzing and comparing efficiency results of corporate organizations or economic agents. It has also found wide application in comparative studies on airport efficiency. The standard DEA approach to comparative airport efficiency analysis has two feeble elements, viz. a methodological weakness and a substantive weakness. The methodological weakness originates from the choice of uniform efficiency improvement assessment, whereas the substantive weakness in airport efficiency analysis concerns the insufficient attention for short‐term and long‐term adjustment possibilities in the production inputs determining airport efficiency. The present paper aims to address both flaws by doing the following: (i) designing a data‐instigated distance friction minimization (DFM) model as a generalization of the standard Banker–Charnes–Cooper model with a view to the development of a more appropriate efficiency improvement projection model in the Banker–Charnes–Cooper version of DEA and (ii) including as factor inputs also lumpy or rigid factors that are characterized by short‐term indivisibility or inertia (and hence not suitable for short‐run flexible adjustment in new efficiency stages), as is the case for runways of airports. This so‐called fixed factor case will be included in the DFM submodel of the DEA. This extended DEA—with a DFM and a fixed factor component—will be applied to a comparative performance analysis of several major airports in Europe. Finally, our comparative study on airport efficiency analysis will be extended by incorporating also the added value of the presence of shopping facilities at airports for their relative economic performance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".