Endogenous Aggregation of Multiple Data Envelopment Analysis Scores for Large Data Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an approach for dynamic efficiency evaluation across multiple organizational dimensions using data envelopment analysis (DEA). The method generates both dimension-specific and aggregate efficiency scores, incorporates desirable and undesirable outputs, and is suitable for large-scale problem settings. Two regularized DEA models are introduced: a slack-based measure (SBM) and a linearized version of a nonlinear goal programming model (GP-SBM). While SBM estimates an aggregate efficiency score and then distributes it across dimensions, GP-SBM first estimates dimension-level efficiencies and then derives an aggregate score. Both models utilize a regularization parameter to enhance discriminatory power while also directly integrating both desirable and undesirable outputs. We demonstrate the computational efficiency and validity of our approach on multiple datasets and apply it to a case study of twelve hospitals in Ontario, Canada, evaluating three theoretically grounded dimensions of organizational effectiveness over a 24-month period from January 2018 to December 2019: technical efficiency, clinical efficiency, and patient experience. Our numerical results show that SBM and GP-SBM better capture correlations among input/output variables and outperform conventional benchmarking methods that separately evaluate dimensions before aggregation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".