MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126512631 · doi:10.1002/atr.198

Measuring production and consumption efficiencies using the slack‐based measure network data envelopment analysis approach: the case of low‐cost carriers

2012· article· en· W2126512631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu‐Chun Chang, Ming‐Miin Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisMeasure (data warehouse)Consumption (sociology)Production (economics)EnvelopmentComputer scienceOperations researchStatisticsEconometricsEngineeringData miningMathematicsEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY One of the most important outcomes of the deregulation of air transportation policy is the emergence of low‐cost carriers (LCCs) around the world. Although LCC airlines have been in operation for more than 30 years, not every LCC is successful. In order to reduce the inefficiencies of LCCs, this paper measures the performance of LCCs by using slack‐based measure network data envelopment analysis. This model combines both the production process with input orientation and the consumption process with output orientation into a unified model. Furthermore, envelopment map analysis LCCs are performed to determine the reasons for the LCCs' inefficiency and how improvements can be made. A sample of 16 low‐cost airlines from Europe, the USA, and Asia were selected for operational performance analysis. The results show that the main reason for easyJet's, US Airways', and Virgin Blue's inefficiency is production inefficiency, so these LCCs should reduce their input quantities to increase efficiency. Jet2, Aer Lingus, and JetBlue were, by contrast, found to be consumption inefficient; these LCCs should increase their output quantities in order to enhance 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207