Weight-restricted DEA in action: from expert opinions to mathematical models
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
A common problem in real-world DEA applications is that all inputs and outputs may not be equally relevant to the organizations analysed and their stakeholders. In many cases, one is also faced with a data set where the decision-making units do not clearly outnumber the quantity of inputs and outputs. This study reports an application where DEA embellished with weight restrictions is used to analyse the efficiency of public organizations to overcome the above-mentioned problems. Whereas there are numerous documented applications of weight-restricted DEA in the literature, the process of defining the actual weight restrictions is seldom described. However, that part — defining the actual weights restrictions based on price, preference or value information — is the most difficult step involved in using the weight-restricted DEA. Comparing various weight restriction schemes with real data suggests that the ability to consider and include preference information in DEA adds important insights into the analysis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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