Developing and training artificial neural networks using bootstrap data envelopment analysis for best performance modeling of sawmills in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The measurement capabilities of the data envelopment analysis (DEA) models are used to train the artificial neural network (ANN) models for the best performance modeling of the sawmills in Ontario. The bootstrap DEA models measure robust technical efficiency scores and have benchmarking abilities, whereas the ANN models use abstract learning from a limited set of information and provide the predictive power. Design/methodology/approach The complementary modeling approaches of the DEA and the ANN provide an adaptive decision support tool for each sawmill. Findings The trained ANN models demonstrate promising results in predicting the relative efficiency scores and the optimal combination of the inputs and the outputs for three categories (large, medium and small) of sawmills in Ontario. The average absolute error in predicting the relative efficiency scores varies from 0.01 to 0.04, and the predicted optimal combination of the inputs (roundwood and employees) and the output (lumber) demonstrate that a large percentage of the sawmills shows less than 10% error in the prediction results. Originality/value The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated DEA-ANN model that can help in the continuous improvement and performance evaluations of the forest industry working under uncertain business environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".