The Analysis for the Scale and Efficiency of China’s Major Automotive Enterprises Based on DEA Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to measure the scale and efficiency of 28 major automotive enterprises in Chinese, and the results show that at this stage, large automobile manufacturers of China are under-produced and the production is too scattered, and the overall efficiency of automobile manufacturers is low. One of the main reasons is that because of the low technical efficiency value, the technological innovation capability of enterprises needs to be strengthened. The other reason is that the low efficiency of a large number of enterprises lowers the overall efficiency level. There is a positive correlation between the scale and efficiency of automobile manufacturers. Whether it is the horizontal comparison between different enterprises (nature) or the vertical comparison between the same enterprises, all show that compared with small-scale enterprises, large-scale manufacturing enterprises not only have higher scale efficiency but also have higher technical efficiency. With the expansion of production scale, the scale of enterprises and technical efficiency have improved, which shows that for the automotive industry, compared with other factors, economies of scale is the main factor that affects the automotive industry, and not only is it reflected in the scale but also in technological innovation. Therefore, when formulating policies, the relevant departments should support the development of large-scale enterprises, encourage mergers and acquisitions among enterprises, increase R&D investment, support technological innovation, and set up a scientific market exit mechanism to reduce exit costs, such as guiding the transformation of enterprises and establish a competition mechanism for the survival of the fittest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".