Research on China’s Regional Cultural Industries’ Efficiency Based on Factor Analysis and BCC & Super Efficiency Model
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
Cultural industries are becoming important drivers for global economic growth. Competitiveness of cultural industries lies in its performance. This paper takes deep research on the cultural industries’ performance of 31 regions in China by the methods of factor analysis and super BCC efficiency model, using the whole statement data of 2010 from cultural industries. As the study shows, there are only 7 provinces which are efficient DMUS in DEA, and inefficacy in scale is one of the most important factors for cultural industries’ efficiency in China, and the short of output is more widespread and serious than redundancy of input. Some proposals are put forward. Firstly, output should be expanded based on completely digging and utilizing the present resources .Second, blind development and input should be avoided. Third, the northeast and central region should work hard to improve pure technical efficiency, and northeast and northwest region should improve scale efficiency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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