A review of Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis: state of the art and applications
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 This article reports the evolution of the literature on Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis (DDEA) models from 1996 to 2016. Systematic searches in the databases Scopus and Web of Science were performed to outline the state of the art. The results enabled the establishment of DDEA studies as the scope of this article, analyzing the transition elements to represent temporal interdependence. The categorization of these studies enabled the mapping of the evolution of the DDEA literature and identification of the relationships between models. The three most widely adopted studies to conduct DDEA research were classified as structuring models. Mapping elucidated the literature behavior through three phases and showed an increase in publications with applications in recent years. The analysis of applications indicated that most studies address evaluations in the agriculture and farming, banking and energy sectors and consider the facilities as transition elements between analysis periods.
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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