MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133704232 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18869880

Methodological Assessment of Manufacturing Plant Systems Efficiency in Nigeria Using Quasi-Experimental Design

2008· article· en· W7133704232 on OpenAlexaff
Nwachukwu Ugwu, Funmilayo Omolewa, Chinedu Osaze

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Cover (algebra)ManufacturingEstimationDesign methodsManufacturing sector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufacturing plants in Nigeria face challenges related to efficiency gains, which can be influenced by system design and operational practices. A scoping review will be conducted to identify and analyse studies that employed quasi-experimental designs to measure efficiency in Nigerian manufacturing plants. The review will cover literature from to the present. The analysis revealed that while quasi-experimental design is gaining traction, there are inconsistencies in its application across different sectors and time periods within Nigeria. Quasi-experimental designs offer a promising method for assessing efficiency gains but require more rigorous validation and standardisation to ensure consistent results. Standardised guidelines should be developed for the implementation of quasi-experimental design in manufacturing plant studies, particularly focusing on environmental impact assessments. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.556
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.045 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207