MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909838049 · doi:10.5539/cis.v12n1p23

Measuring the Performance of Hospitals in Lebanese qadas Using PCA- DEA Model

2019· article· en· W2909838049 on OpenAlex
Alissar Nasser

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Libanaise
KeywordsData envelopment analysisComputer sciencePrincipal component analysisNonparametric statisticsEfficiencyVariance (accounting)Linear programmingEconometricsMathematical optimizationStatisticsData miningMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEconomicsAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study in this paper the performance of Hospitals in Lebanon. Using the nonparametric method Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), we are able to measures relative efficiency of Hospitals in Lebanon. DEA is a technique that uses linear programming and it measures the relative efficiency of similar type of organizations termed as Decision Making Units (DMUs). In this study, due to the lack of individual data on hospital level, each DMU refers to a qada in Lebanon where the used data represent the aggregation of input and outputs of different hospitals within the qada. In DEA, the inclusion of more number of inputs and /or outputs results in getting a more number of efficient units. Therefore, selecting the appropriate inputs and outputs is a major factor of DEA results. Therefore, we use here the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in order to reduce the data structure into certain principal components which are essential for identifying efficient DMUs. It is important to note that we have used the basic BCC-input model for the entire analysis. We considered 24 DMUs for the study, using DEA on original data; we got 17 DMUs out of 24 DMUs as efficient. Then we considered 1 PC for inputs and 1 PC for output with almost 80 percent variances, resulting in 3 DMUs as efficient and 21 as inefficient. Using 1 PC for input and 2 PCs for output with 90 percent variance for both input and output, we got 9 DMUs as efficient and 15 DMUs as inefficient. Finally, we have attempted to identify the efficient units with 2 PCs and for 2 PCs for input and outputs with variance more than 95 percent, resulting in 10 efficient DMUs and 14 inefficient DMUs. In Principal Component analysis, if the variance lies between 80 percent to-90 percent it is judged as a meaningful one. It is concluded that Principal Component Analysis plays an important role in the reduction of input output variables and helps in identifying the efficient DMUs and improves the discriminating power of DEA.

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 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)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.254 · 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