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

Trade‐offs in integer data envelopment analysis

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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.377
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Transactions in Operational ResearchSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207