Enhancing group efficiency through two-stage data envelopment analysis with a modified common set of weights approach: an application in banking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper empirically evaluates group efficiency in the banking sector by applying an extended Common Set of Weights (CSWs) approach within a two-stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) framework. Our study assesses efficiency across multiple production stages and adapts CSWs to capture the intermediate processes inherent in banking operations. We provide a comprehensive ranking of bank branches within seven prominent banking groups in Guilan province, Iran. By applying our modified methodology to real-world data, we demonstrate its practical utility in delivering precise efficiency assessments and actionable insights for enhancing operational performance. Our findings highlight the superiority of the extended CSWs methodology over traditional DEA models, offering a more accurate and fair evaluation of group efficiency in the complex and interdependent context of banking processes.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".