Cited by 144Efficiency Analysis Using DEAAgricultural economics and policiesLivestock Farming and Management

Technical efficiency measures for dairy farms using panel data: A comparison of alternative model specifications

Ahmad, Munir, Bravo-Ureta, Boris E.·1996·Journal of Productivity Analysis

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00162049

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ahmad and Bravo-Ureta (1996) concluded that TE measures do not appear to be affected by the choice of the functional form.

    “Ahmad and Bravo-Ureta (1996) rejected the Cobb-Douglas functional form in favour of a simplified translog form, but concluded that TE measures do not appear to be affected by the choice of the functional form.”

    From Technical efficiency in developing country agriculture: a meta‐analysis (2001) · cites this paper as Ahmad and Bravo-Ureta (1996)

  • There is a contradiction among researchers regarding whether technical efficiency estimates obtained using Cobb-Douglas and Translog frontier models are similar.

    “However, there exist contradiction among researchers in respect of similarity or otherwise of technical efficiency estimates obtained using CobbDouglas and Translog frontier models.”
  • Contrary results on technical efficiency from the Cobb-Douglas and Translog functional forms have been observed.

    “According to Ahmad and Bravo-Uretta, (1996) and Thiam, Barvo-Ureta and Rivas, (2001), contrary results on technical efficiency from the two functional forms were observed.”
  • Ahmad and Bravo-Ureta (1996) argued that there was no much difference in the results obtained from the two functional forms.

    “While Thiam et al. (2001) observed that the average technical efficiency score from Cobb-Douglas function was significantly different from those of Translog function, Ahmad and Bravo-Ureta (1996) argued that there was no much difference in the results obtained from two functional forms, but suggested that the comparison between functional forms in the efficiency studies was imperative.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmad, M., & Bravo-Ureta, B. E.
Affiliations
University of Agriculture Faisalabad (PK)
Venue
Journal of Productivity Analysis
Published
1996-10
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
399-415
ISSN
  • 0895-562X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0441
OpenAlex
W2032211397
Cited by
141
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Productivity Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Efficiency Analysis Using DEA
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
Keywords
technical efficiency, dairy farms, stochastic production frontier, model specification comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review