MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414045690 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.8.003

Multi-period efficiency evaluation of heterogeneous decision-making units: Assessing efficiency before, during, and after COVID-19

2025· article· en· W4414045690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fariba Dastani, Ghasem Tohidi, Masoud Sanei, Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Shabnam Razavyan

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisField (mathematics)EfficiencyHomogeneousEconomic efficiencyUnit (ring theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is an effective method for evaluating and improving the performance of Decision-Making Units (DMUs). It utilizes mathematical programming models to compare homogeneous units based on their inputs and outputs. One of the major challenges in this field is assessing the efficiency of DMUs over different time periods, where heterogeneity, arises due to various factors, such as, scientific and technological advancements, political and economic changes, system management updates, etc. These changes may lead to the addition or elimination of outputs, making unit comparisons more complex and creating significant differences in efficiency. Traditional DEA methods often fail to account for these changes across time periods simultaneously. Therefore, there is a need for new approaches, as to assess the efficiency of DMUs under such conditions. This paper addresses these challenges and presents a novel approach for analyzing the efficiency of DMUs undergoing substantial changes over time. As a practical application, the results of an empirical study evaluating conferences throughout three time periods, namely, (before the COVID-19 outbreak, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic) have been presented. These findings demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed approach effectively and can significantly assist organizations in more accurate evaluations and the enhancement of performance, relative to the evolving units.

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 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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.367 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207