Efficiency evaluation for decision making units with fixed-sum outputs using data envelopment analysis and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generalized equilibrium efficient frontier data envelopment analysis (GEEFDEA) approach, an extension of the DEA method, has been widely used to solve the problem of evaluating decision making units (DMUs) producing fixed-sum outputs. It constructs a common equilibrium efficient frontier through a minimum reduction strategy for fixed-sum outputs and uses this frontier as a benchmark to achieve a complete ranking of DMUs. However, the existence of multiple feasible equilibrium efficient frontiers may lead to inconsistency in the evaluation criteria, and this possibility limits the method’s usefulness. In this paper, an integrated framework for solving this problem is proposed to rank DMUs by using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA-2) method combined with the GEEFDEA approach. Instead of using a certain common equilibrium efficient frontier as in conventional GEEFDEA approaches, we explore all possible frontiers to answer various robustness questions by computing rank acceptability indices and pairwise winning indices. Furthermore, we derive the complete ranking from the dominance relationships among the DMUs. Two numerical examples are used to demonstrate the effectiveness and rationality of the proposed hybrid approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it