Efficiency measurement for hierarchical situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement and monitoring of the efficiency of processes in organisations has become an important undertaking in today’s competitive environment. A fundamental tool for this undertaking is data envelopment analysis (DEA). The conventional setting for DEA views the decision-making unit (DMU) (school, hospital etc.) as a black box with inputs entering and outputs leaving. The current paper looks at a problem setting somewhat related to a multistage situation but pertaining to a particular form of hierarchical structure. Specifically, we examine a set of electric power units that act as sub-units or sub-DMUs, operating under the framework of set of power plants that play the role of DMUs. We develop a DEA-like methodology that evaluates, in a two-stage manner, both the efficiencies of the sub-units and of the aggregates of those sub-units (the plants). In so doing, the approach attempts to have the projected values of plant-level inputs and outputs match up with the corresponding aggregate values of the sub-unit projections, as is the case prior to projection to the frontier. Since such projections may in fact not match up as described, we introduce a goal-DEA methodology to minimise the extent of any failure to achieve this match up.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".