MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312448894 · doi:10.1111/itor.12255

Trade‐offs in integer data envelopment analysis

2016· article· en· W2312448894 on OpenAlex
Mohammadreza Alirezaee, Mohammadreza Rafiee Sani

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

VenueInternational Transactions in Operational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisAxiomInteger programmingInteger (computer science)Mathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Production (economics)Computer scienceLinear programmingMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract If production trade‐offs—which represent simultaneously feasible exchanges in the inputs and outputs of decision‐making units (DMUs)—are added to an integer production possibility set (IPPS), a new IPPS is produced; conventional axioms of production do not generate a new IPPS, however. This paper develops the axiomatic foundation for data envelopment analysis (DEA) for integer‐value inputs and outputs in the presence of production trade‐offs by introducing a new axiom of “natural trade‐offs.” First, a mixed‐integer linear programming formula called an integer DEA trade‐off (IDEA‐TO) is presented for computing efficiency scores and reference points. The numeration algorithm (NA) method presented in this concept is improved, and an improved numeration algorithm (INA) method for solving integer DEA (IDEA) models is developed. Finally, comparison between the two methods and a generalized INA method for solving the IDEA‐TO model are presented.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.161 · 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