A Comparative Evaluation of Public Road Transportation Systems in India Using Multicriteria Decision-Making Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we evaluate the performance of major public road transport organizations in India. The contribution of the paper lies in integrating four multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques to assess the relative performance of public road transportation systems on twenty-three criteria across two consecutive years. The paper classifies the criteria into functional heads and establishes the relative importance of heads using the analytical hierarchical process (AHP). The efficiency scores of each organization referred to as a decision-making unit (DMU) were computed for the classified heads using the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach. The multicriteria optimization and compromise solution technique “VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje” (VIKOR) was used to assign a final rank to each of the DMUs using computed efficiency scores and established weights. Finally, we analyzed the performance of the DMUs across the two consecutive years using the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI). Our key findings are as follows: First, the performance of all DMUs has improved in the second year with respect to the first year; second, significant improvement is observed in the “expenses” functional head which carries a substantial weight among the functional heads; third, barring few DMUs, the performance of the majority of DMUs has worsened in the “accident” functional head; fourth, while few DMUs have been consistently very good performers in both the years, there are also few DMUs which have consistently performed poorly in both the years. The inferences drawn from the study can be leveraged for future policy formulations by the state government and local municipal corporations and for sharing best practices among the DMUs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".