Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Efficiency is a crucial factor in productivity growth and the optimal allocation of resources in the economy; therefore, measuring inefficiency is particularly important. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the latest developments in distance functions and the measurement of inefficiency within the stochastic frontier framework. Recent advances in several related areas are reviewed and evaluated, including various approaches to measuring inefficiency using distance functions, advancements in modeling inefficiency within the stochastic frontier framework, and the most common estimation techniques. A practical guide is provided on when these methods can be applied and how to implement them. The radial, hyperbolic, and directional measures of inefficiency are discussed and assessed. The development of modeling inefficiency concerning its temporal behavior, classification, and determinants is also examined. To ensure the use of appropriate estimation techniques, recent advancements in the most common estimation techniques are reviewed. This paper also addresses the importance of maintaining the theoretical regularity applied by neoclassical microeconomic theory when it is violated, as well as the econometric regularity when variables are non-stationary. Without regularity, inefficiency results can be extremely misleading. The paper discusses significant challenges related to estimation issues that must be managed in future applications. These challenges include the inaccurate choice of functional form, ignoring the possibility of heterogeneity and heteroskedasticity, and suffering from the endogeneity problem. The paper also examines various approaches to addressing these issues, as well as potentially productive areas for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".