MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133055075

Forecasting DEA scores

2003· dissertation· W7133055075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Forshtendiker

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2003
Typedissertation
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisMeasure (data warehouse)Autoregressive modelWork (physics)Function (biology)Statistical modelStatistical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last decade has seen significant work examining the statistical properties of the measurements yielded by Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). However, no attempt has been made to predict DEA scores for the individual decision-making units (DMUs) being analyzed. This paper develops an autoregressive model using the Box-Jenkins methodology to predict and tests it on data sets from three different industries—Canadian banking, U.S. major oil companies, and Japanese power producers. In the process, a novel measure for DMU comparison is developed and a new density function is introduced to show “distances†between inefficient DMus. The model is shown to provide good in-sample fits and out-of-sample predictions for all three industries.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207