MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953888460 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v9n3p14

Benchmarking on Water Resource Utilization Efficiency of Prefecture-Level Cities in Jiangxi, China: A Bootstrap-DEA Approach with Three-Stage DEA Models

2019· article· en· W2953888460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mianhao Hu, Yunling Hu, Juhong Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisBenchmarkingEnvironmental economicsStage (stratigraphy)ChinaMeasure (data warehouse)Resource (disambiguation)Computer scienceWater resourcesEnvironmental scienceEconometricsBusinessStatisticsEconomicsMathematicsData miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China has long been adopted traditional data envelopment analysis (DEA) models to measure water resources utilization efficiency of different provinces and cities without bias correction of efficiency scores. In this study, the Bootstrap-DEA approach embedded 3-stage DEA models was introduced to analyze the comprehensive efficiency of water resources utilization in the different prefecture-level cities Jiangxi and tried to improve the application of this method for benchmarking and inter-regional research. It is found that the bias corrected efficiency scores of Bootstrap-DEA differ significantly from those of the traditional DEA model, which implies that Chinese researchers need to update their DEA models for more scientific calculation of water resources utilization efficiency scores. This research has helped narrow the inter-regional gap in the comprehensive efficiency measurement and improvement of water resources utilization. It is suggested that Bootstrap-DEA embedded 3-stage DEA models be widely applied into afterward research to measure comprehensive efficiency of water resources utilization in regional inter-city so as to better serve for efficiency improvement and related decision making.

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)0.006
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207