The Development of an Efficiency-Based Global Green Manufacturing Innovation Index: An Input-Oriented DEA Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation-based economic growth is considered to be a vital strategic aim for all economies, but environmentally friendly concepts and sustainable development (SD) must also be considered. The literature on the Global Innovation Index (GII) shows various investigations relevant to innovation, yet the lack of comprehensive consideration within the GII of environmental concerns represents a critical challenge. This paper aims to provide a holistic-perspective evaluation model for the top 15 manufacturing countries worldwide in order to resolve this. The efficiency-based Global Green Manufacturing Innovation Index (GGMII) was developed by formulating an input-oriented data envelopment analysis model. Criteria such as the value added to the gross domestic product (GDP), corresponding CO2 emissions, and unemployment rates were examined in order to represent the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of SD, respectively. Other scientific and technological dimensions were also considered. The data corresponding to all ten of the criteria were collected from World Bank Open Data. The results show a mismatch between the original GII and the proposed GGMII for the top eight manufacturing countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Korea, France, China, Japan, and Canada), while the remaining countries (Italy, Spain, Russia, India, Mexico, Brazil, and Indonesia) occupied the same rank in both indices, but showed a sizable diminution in their original GII scores. The proposed GGMII might be utilized as a benchmarking instrument for all countries worldwide in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".