A note to ‘Enterprise risk management: a DEA VaR approach in vendor selection’: a response to Wei and Wang and model extension
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enterprise risk management (ERM) has become an important topic in today's more complex, interrelated global business environment, replete with threats from natural, political, economic and technical sources. Wu and Olson (Citation2010) [Wu, D.S. and Olson, D., 2010. Enterprise risk management: a DEA VaR approach in vendor selection. International Journal of Production Research 48 (16), 4919–4932] present a state-of-the-art overview of Enterprise risk management and discuss the possibility of constructing a value at risk measure at the data envelopment analysis (DEA) framework. Wei and Wang [Wei, G.W. and Wang, J.M., 2011. Value-at-risk and data envelopment analysis: comments on Wu and Olson (Citation2010). International Journal of Production Research, 49 (23), 7189–7193] contend errors in the article. Wei and Wang suggest a model based on Li [Li, S.X., 1998. Stochastic models and variable returns to scales in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 104, 532–548]. We show that the suggested model in Wei and Wang (Citation2011) does not solve the problem completely. We provide alternative approaches to conduct performance evaluation with good discriminating power. Keywords: risk managementperformance analysis Notes Also at School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavik University, Menntavegur 1, Nauthólsvík, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland. Additional informationNotes on contributorsDesheng Dash Wu Also at School of Science and Engineering, Reykjavik University, Menntavegur 1, Nauthólsvík, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it