Evaluating the Efficiencies of Academic Research Groups: A Problem of Shared Outputs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a methodology for evaluating the relative efficiencies of a set of decision-making units (DMUs), based on their multiple inputs and outputs. The original model is based on the assumption that DMUs operate independently of one another. However, this assumption may not apply in some situations, as in the case we present in this paper, in which DMUs can work together to produce joint outputs. What makes it more interesting is the situation in which this characteristic of sharing outputs among some DMUs differs from one DMU to another; this makes it more challenging to determine independent efficiency scores that cater for this phenomenon. To address this, the current paper presents a methodology for measuring efficiency in situations in which DMUs share outputs with other units. We examine the case of a set of research groups in a Mexican university. For this study, the inputs used are professors belonging to various groups, and outputs are the published journal articles, some of which are produced completely within a group, whereas others arise from collaboration with professors from other research groups. Jointly published articles form a link connecting the groups.
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 | 0.112 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".