Ranking DMUs using a novel combination method for integrating the results of relative closeness benevolent and relative closeness aggressive models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a novel combination method is offered to integrate the results of two new relative closeness models, called relative closeness benevolent (RCB) and relative closeness aggressive (RCA) models, for ranking all DMUs. To prove the applicability of the proposed method, it is examined in three numerical examples, performance assessment problem, six nursing homes and fourteen international passenger airlines. Firstly, RCB and RCA models were formulated in order to generate the cross-efficiency intervals matrix (CEIM). After obtaining CEIM, the RC index was utilized to generate a combined cross-efficiency matrix (combined CEM). In combined CEM, target DMUs were viewed as criteria and DMUs were viewed as alternatives. After that, the weights of each criterion were generated using a new weighting method based on standard deviation technique (MSDT). Finally, all DMUs were evaluated and ranked. Comparison with existing cross-efficiency models indicates the more reliable results through the use of the proposed method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it