An Index of the Quality of Life for European Countries: Evidence of Deprivation from EU-SILC Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from EU-SILC data, a sample survey that defines the harmonised lists of target primary (annual) and secondary (every four years or less frequently) variables transmitted to Eurostat by the 27 countries, we have chosen a set of about fifty indicators on a qualitative basis. An exploratory factorial analysis led us to accept only eleven variables distributed around three principle components, assuming that each of them could become, after further inquiry, an index of deprivation.\nThen we carried out the factorial analysis on the three principle components just found. The distribution of the eleven remaining data can be roughly interpreted as follows: the first group indicates material deprivation; the second one social deprivation; the third one can be labelled as depending on economic policy. Three factorial indexes consist in the factor score resulting from the factorial analysis on the partial indicators summarizing information supplied by each variable; the sum of our three indicators offers a global index of the quality of life (QL-index), whose values can be classified in order to identify groups of countries with similar conditions. A map will be drawn to overview the condition of the countries considered. We will test the three obtained indicators with the Spearman rho, comparing it with the ranking score of the Human Development Index and the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index of European countries. The expected result is quite high correlation between them, mainly for the material deprivation index. The correlation with the ranking score will allow us to compare the relation of HDI, our QL-index, and the three components of it considered separately. The comparison between the two, the HD Index and the QL-Index, should reveal that the latter is more correlated with the IHDI. The greater number of indicators in our index should improve its explaining power, taking into account also social dimensions not so relevant in the HDI. The articulation of our index makes it possible to analyse the phenomenon more precisely; at the same time, the sum of the three indicators could be a good validation of the HDI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".