Notice bibliographique
Résumé
New or improved decision analysis tools are developed in this thesis to address strategic policy analysis with specific focus on two topics: strategic conflict analysis and region-performance \ncomparisons. \n \nA strategic conflict refers to a situation in which two or more decision makers (DMs) are to make a decision that affects issues \nover which they have different preferences. Various forms of strategic conflict exist all around us, in areas such as environmental management, international relations, economic competition, and relationships among individuals. The graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) is an advanced and comprehensive tool to systematically study strategic conflicts. A well-known decision tool, the analytic network process (ANP) is adapted for \nuse in strategic conflict analysis and a comparison of the performance of ANP with GMCR is carried out. Both methods are \napplied to an international trading conflict between the United States and China over the importation of television sets into the US in order to gain strategic insights about this dispute using the two different but complementary approaches. \n \nA country's overall performance comparison with respect to different kinds of indices such as economic, environmental and political indices constitutes another interesting topic for strategic policy analysis. An index aggregation approach is \nproposed to compare BRICSAM countries, a populous rapidly-growing economic group of nations consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, \nChina, South Africa, ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), and Mexico with G7 (Group of Seven), the most developed \ncountry club including Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States. A data-envelopment-analysis (DEA) based approach is proposed to aggregate different ranking indices for BRICSAM and the G7 countries. The proposed method can provide a fair overall assessment of a country's standing by \nmaximizing its possibility of obtaining the best evaluation score. \n \nFinally, a framework to carry out generic strategic analysis for regions' competence analysis is designed based upon the theory of generic strategic analysis proposed by Porter (1980). This is a well-known approach for use in business competence analysis. The basic idea is to carry out generic strategic analysis in policy \nstudies and two decision tools, DEA and the analytic hierarchy process, are employed to quantify the analysis of competence \nefficiency and potentiality, respectively. A case study of the competence analysis of provinces in China is used to demonstrate \nthe analysis procedure.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».