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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alissar Nasser

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207