MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292089247 · doi:10.1093/imaman/dpac009

An inverse data envelopment analysis model to consider ratio data and preferences of decision-makers

2022· article· en· W4292089247 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

VenueIMA Journal of Management Mathematics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisInverseEconometricsComputer scienceDecision makerEfficiencyEconomicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inverse data envelopment analysis (DEA) determines the optimal level of inputs and/or outputs of decision-making units (DMUs) to reach efficiency targets. This paper presents a new inverse DEA model for determining minimum inputs for working capital management. The proposed model is employed in the Indian textile industry to calculate working capital efficiency. Given the working capital efficiency, the decision maker’s preferences will be estimating the change in inputs when outputs increase. Furthermore, unlike the standard inverse DEA model, this article discusses the inverse DEA model when negative ratio data exist. The DEA model requires additional attention when ratio data are present; therefore, a novel inverse DEA ratio model is proposed. The input targets obtained from the proposed model are less than the standard inverse DEA model. Also, the proposed model is a closer estimate of the production probability set for ratio data.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.198 · 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