Business Efficiency Evaluation of Machine Tool Manufacturers by Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA): A Case Study of Taiwanese Listed Machine Tool Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is widely used to measure the business efficiency of many industries, among which the Taiwanese machine tool industry is well-known for its complete supply-chain system. Relying on DEA and Malmquist Productivity Index to analyze the business efficiency of Taiwanese listed machine tool manufacturers from 2018 to 2019, this study compared the changes in their business efficiencies and productivities. According to the five change indicators of Malmquist, only the technical efficiency, pure technical efficiency, and scale efficiency of the overall industry posted some growth during the research period, showing that the whole industry is actively improving its technical efficiency and striving to achieve the scale efficiency. However, technical change and total factor productivity declined slightly, indicating that the industry still makes more technical progress. Thus, companies should adjust their inputs and outputs to improve the production boundary for technical progress. The purposes of this study are to identify the success factors of the excellent performance of manufacturers and the benchmarking indicators of the decision-making unit on the efficient frontier results to provide some references for formulating future business strategies and direction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".