MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346189329 · doi:10.7232/iems.2016.15.1.049

Using DEA and AHP for Hierarchical Structures of Data

2016· article· en· W2346189329 on OpenAlex

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

VenueIndustrial Engineering & Management Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processData envelopment analysisRanking (information retrieval)Parametric statisticsComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Set (abstract data type)Data miningHierarchyMathematical optimizationProcess (computing)Operations researchMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an integrated data envelopment analysis (DEA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology in which the information about the hierarchical structures of input-output data can be reflected in the performance assessment of decision making units (DMUs). Firstly, this can be implemented by extending a traditional DEA model to a three-level DEA model. Secondly, weight bounds, using AHP, can be incorporated in the three-level DEA model. Finally, the effects of incorporating weight bounds can be analyzed by developing a parametric distance model. Increasing the value of a parameter in a domain of efficiency loss, we explore the various systems of weights. This may lead to various ranking positions for each DMU in comparison to the other DMUs. An illustrative example of road safety performance for a set of 19 European countries highlights the usefulness of the proposed approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.087 · 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