The quantile regression approach to efficiency measurement: insights from Monte Carlo simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the health economics literature there is an ongoing debate over approaches used to estimate the efficiency of health systems at various levels, from the level of the individual hospital - or nursing home - up to that of the health system as a whole. The two most widely used approaches to evaluating the efficiency with which various units deliver care are non-parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) and parametric stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). Productivity researchers tend to have very strong preferences over which methodology to use for efficiency estimation. In this paper, we use Monte Carlo simulation to compare the performance of DEA and SFA in terms of their ability to accurately estimate efficiency. We also evaluate quantile regression as a potential alternative approach. A Cobb-Douglas production function, random error terms and a technical inefficiency term with different distributions are used to calculate the observed output. The results, based on these experiments, suggest that neither DEA nor SFA can be regarded as clearly dominant, and that, depending on the quantile estimated, the quantile regression approach may be a useful addition to the armamentarium of methods for estimating technical 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".