Assessing the efficiency of the accounting industry using multiactivity network DEA: evidence from Taiwan
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
Abstract Accounting firms are highly specialized and subject to government recognition through professional licenses. Accordingly, in assessing an accounting firm's performance, the performance measurement system should be generic enough to provide an integrated view of important factors from different perspectives. However, traditional performance measurements are based on several predefined factors that provide a partial view of the system or are limited to a single activity, thereby ignoring their interactions. This study proposes a modified data envelopment analysis model with multiactivity and network techniques on accounting firms. It creates a realistic approach to adequately measure the efficiency of the accounting industry and to suggest possible improvements for accounting firms. To verify the effectiveness of the model, we assessed the performance of 298 Taiwanese accounting firms in 2010 with three parallel‐connected activities and two series‐connected performance management processes. The results show that Taiwanese accounting firms greatly benefit from service processes and taxation activities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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