Methodology for Integral Evaluation of Human Development Level as Exemplified by the Leading Countries of Asia-Pacific Region and European Union
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examine evolution of approach towards understanding of human capital and qualitativetransformation of human’s role in economics, conditioned by the transition to post-industrial society.Neo-classical approach has a special role in development of human capital theory. Examining human capital as asource economic growth of any country, the authors point out qualitative perfection of human potential. Thearticle introduces methodology for integral evaluation of level of human development exemplified by the leadingcountries of Asia-Pacific Region an European Union. In addition, complex evaluation of human capitaldevelopment is discussed as a two-side process: from one side, it is a formation of human abilities and skills,from the other side – realization of gained abilities and skills for the use of production or for recreation, cultural,political activity. Several key points of human development are pointed out for the purposes of a complexevaluation of human potential.Authors’ methodology of calculation of human development index is distinguishable from conventionalmethodology by at least one main principle: the authors believe that conducted experimental calculations mightprovide the most complete idea of human development from the point of view of three interconnectedcharacteristics: human capital, human resources, and evaluation of conditions for formation and implementationof abilities and skills of a person.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it