An extension to a DEA support system used for assessing R&D projects
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
This paper describes an extension to the data envelopment analysis (DEA) support system that has been used for the assessment, rating, and ranking of diverse portfolios of research and development (R&D) projects at Lucent Technologies. The approach is illustrated through its application to a large portfolio of R&D projects considered by Lucent's Advanced Technologies Group. The method proceeds by first stratifying the portfolio into comparably efficient groups of projects through the construction of a series of efficient DEA frontiers, and then by lexicographically ranking each project within these groups relative to DEA‐based contextual attractiveness measures calculated from the different partitions. The advantages to this approach are provided not only from the perspective of the specific project rankings that are produced but also from the broader managerial insights that can be derived from any resulting differences between officially sanctioned, quantitative decision‐making procedures, and the quality of the decisions that have actually been made by managers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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