Dynamic Performance Assessment of Hospitals by Applying Credibility-Based Fuzzy Window Data Envelopment Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the current research is to propose the credibility-based fuzzy window data envelopment analysis (CFWDEA) approach as a novel method for the dynamic performance evaluation of hospitals during different periods under data ambiguity and linguistic variables. To reach this goal, a data envelopment analysis (DEA) method, a window analysis technique, a possibilistic programming approach, credibility theory, and chance-constrained programming (CCP) are employed. In addition, the applicability and efficacy of the proposed CFWDEA approach are illustrated utilizing a real data set to evaluate the performance of hospitals in the USA. It should be explained that three inputs including the number of beds, labor-related expenses, patient care supplies, and other expenses as well as three outputs including the number of outpatient department visits, the number of inpatient department admissions, and overall patient satisfaction level, are considered for the dynamic performance appraisal of hospitals. The experimental results show the usefulness of the CFWDEA method for the evaluation and ranking of hospitals in the presence of fuzzy data, linguistic variables, and epistemic uncertainty.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".