Modelling efficiency in the presence of shared inputs within groups of DMUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a methodology for evaluating efficiencies of decision-making units (DMUs) with each unit having its own set of inputs and outputs. However, there are situations where there can be an interdependence among the units. In a previous paper the authors examine efficiency measurement in a situation where university departments are grouped by faculty and share a single resource at the faculty level. Furthermore, the shared resource is assumed to be one which cannot be split up and allocated to the group members. The current paper generalizes that earlier work by considering decision-making units grouped according to multiple attributes and with multiple shared inputs. In addition, the problem of overlapping groups is investigated. A DEA-like methodology is developed for deriving efficiency scores in this multiple attribute situation. Further, we present a methodology for evaluating efficiency at the level of the groups, e.g. the level of the faculty, as well as at the level of the members within the groups. To further demonstrate the need for such methodologies, we present a number of real-world problem settings where shared factors and groupings of DMUs need to be dealt with.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".