MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037616197 · doi:10.4236/ajor.2011.13015

A Hierarchical Methodology for Performance Evaluation Based on Data Envelopment Analysis: The Case of Companies’ Competitiveness in an Economy

2011· article· en· W2037616197 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Operations Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisIndex (typography)Identification (biology)Computer scienceIndustrial organizationOperations researchBusinessEconometricsEconomicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, we present a hierarchical Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology for competitiveness analysis. This methodology takes into account the heterogeneity of the decision making units (DMUs) as well as the diversity of the comparison criteria. We propose to homogenize the DMUs by grouping them hierarchically, which permits a better identification and definition of the criteria in each specific grouping. The methodology proceeds first by the determination of the performances or relative efficiencies, which are in turn aggregated into competitiveness indices in each grouping by the superiority index of [1]; then, the overall competitiveness indices are determined additively along the hierarchical levels. We illustrate the methodology by a competitiveness analysis of several companies belonging to different sectors of activity in an economy, where are suggested ways of improvement for the non-competitive companies within their sectors and within the economy.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.676
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.094 · 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