MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888857188 · doi:10.1080/09645292.2018.1512560

Sensitivity of university rankings: implications of stochastic dominance efficiency analysis

2018· article· en· W2888857188 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehmet Pinar, Joniada Milla, Thanasis Stengos

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSaint Mary's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaEdge Hill University
KeywordsEconometricsEconomicsDominance (genetics)Sensitivity (control systems)Stochastic dominanceStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To create their rankings, university-ranking agencies usually combine multiple performance measures into a composite index. However, both rankings and index scores are sensitive to the weights assigned to performance measures. This paper uses a stochastic dominance efficiency methodology to obtain two extreme, case-weighting vectors using the Academic Ranking of Worldwide Universities (ARWU) and Times Higher Education (THE) data, both of which lead to the highest and lowest index outcomes for the majority of universities. We find that both composite scores and rankings are very sensitive to weight variations, especially for middle- and low-ranked universities.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation EconomicsSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207