MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235557390 · doi:10.1504/ijor.2017.087828

Fuzzy trade-offs in data envelopment analysis

2017· article· en· W4235557390 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operational Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisComputer scienceProduction (economics)Ranking (information retrieval)Fuzzy logicData miningEconomicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production trade-offs represent simultaneous and possible changes to the inputs and outputs in the technology under consideration. However, since trade-offs are illative and subjective, in many real applications, the data of production trade-offs cannot be precisely measured. Occasionally, a crisp trade-off cannot reflect desirable judgment of expert. This paper develops the trade-off approach in data envelopment analysis (DEA) using imprecise trade-offs represented by fuzzy sets. We develop some fuzzy versions of trade-off DEA models by using some ranking methods based on the comparison of α-cuts. We show in numerical examples how our models become useful for detecting sensitive trade-offs. In other words, our approach can be seen as extension of the trade-off approach that provides users with models, which represent real evaluation of decision making units (DMU) with good judgments as possible trade-offs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0110.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.447
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it