MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405547750 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17120568

Evaluating the Financial Performance of Colombian Companies: A Data Envelopment Analysis Without Explicit Inputs and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution Approach

2024· article· en· W4405547750 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adel Mendoza Mendoza, Daniel Mendoza Cásseres, Enrique Delahoz-Domínguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceOrder (exchange)Ideal (ethics)Data envelopment analysisSimilarity (geometry)Ideal solutionComputer scienceEconometricsOperations researchBusinessEconomicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMicroeconomicsFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation and ranking of companies in any sector are generally based on a single measure of financial success, so the results obtained vary according to the classification criteria used. This study applies a multi-criteria approach to develop a classification of the largest companies in Colombia based on their financial results for the period 2022–2023. An analysis of 100 companies was conducted, utilizing four critical criteria: operating income, net profit, total assets, and equity. The evaluation followed a two-stage process. In the first stage, the weights or importance of each selected criterion were objectively established using data envelopment analysis without explicit inputs (DEA-WEIs). This approach reveals that operating income (35.23%) and total assets (28.57%) are the most influential criteria, while net profit is the least influential (13.51%). In the second stage, companies are ranked using the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), with the results highlighting Refinería de Cartagena, Empresas Públicas de Medellín, and Terpel S.A. as the top-performing companies. The classification shows clear differentiation, forming two statistically distinct groups validated through discriminant analysis, achieving a 100% correct classification rate. These findings provide actionable insights for benchmarking and improving financial performance in the corporate sector.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207