Efficiency Measurement of Multistage Processes: Context Dependent Numbers of Stages
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
An important area of research involving the benchmarking methodology data envelopment analysis (DEA), concerns the modeling of multistage situations. In the usual multistage settings, it is generally assumed that all decision-making units (DMUs) have the same number and configuration of stages. However, in many real-world examples, this assumption does not hold. Consider, for example, a supply chain setting where for some DMUs, products are shipped directly from a supplier to a retailer (single-stage), while for other DMUs, products can be transshipped through distribution centers (two or more stages). In the current paper, we investigate an efficiency measurement situation where the DMUs exhibit a mix of single and two-stage setups. The particular case examined involves a set of high technology firms that can be thought of as falling into two groups; those firms where the output of interest is the annual revenue generated, and those that not only generate revenue, but as well invest a portion of that revenue in R&D. Firms in the first group can be viewed as being single-stage DMUs while those in the other group are of the two-stage type. The modeling complication here is that the set of DMUs do not explicitly form a homogeneous set of units. We develop a DEA-style model aimed at measuring efficiency in the presence of such nonhomogeneous two-group structures.
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 | 0.038 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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