MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981473717 · doi:10.1109/icmsao.2019.8880388

Relative Performance Evaluation of Ontario's Sawmills with Bootstrap DEA

2019· article· en· W2981473717 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisInefficiencyEfficiencySample (material)Operations researchOperations managementQuality (philosophy)Environmental economicsComputer scienceEconomicsStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses a non-parametric technique, Bootstrap Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), in analyzing the relative technical efficiency of 125 Ontario's sawmills (with 1402 sample data observations) collected over a period of 17 years (1999 to 2015). The results indicate low levels of overall technical and managerial efficiencies in the Ontario's sawmills over the entire study period. The main source of inefficiency of the sawmills was the management of operations, especially when these sawmills were not able to adjust their inputs with changing and uncertain market demand conditions. These results provide policy makers and sawmill managers with comprehensive details of relative technical efficiencies in Ontario's sawmills, so that future resources can be reallocated to improve the performance of forest products industry in Ontario.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207