MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239334326 · doi:10.1007/1-4020-7798-x_3

Sensitivity Analysis in DEA

2005· book-chapter· en· W4239334326 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

VenueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Focus (optics)Stability (learning theory)Computer scienceWork (physics)Linear programmingData miningAlgorithmMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents some of the recently developed analytical methods for studying the sensitivity of DEA results to variations in the data. The focus is on the stability of classification of DMUs (Decision Making Units) into efficient and inefficient performers. Early work on this topic concentrated on developing algorithms for conducting such analyses after it was noted that standard approaches for conducting sensitivity analyses in linear programming could not be used in DEA. However, recent work has bypassed the need for such algorithms. It has also evolved from the early work that was confined to studying data variations in one input or output for one DMU. The newer methods described in this paper make it possible to analyze the sensitivity of results when all data are varied simultaneously for all DMUs.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.275 · 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