MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014042223 · doi:10.1080/01446190701670381

An analysis of infrastructure development based on national competitiveness perspectives

2008· article· en· W2014042223 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Management and Economics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Trade and Competitiveness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Performance indicatorSelection (genetic algorithm)Linear discriminant analysisBusinessSet (abstract data type)Representation (politics)Regional scienceIndustrial organizationEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceEconomicsMarketingGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of the infrastructure is one of the key factors in determining the competitiveness of a nation. Most world competitiveness reports include infrastructure development as a primary set of indicators in assessing the competitiveness of nations. We ranked the indicators based on their performances in terms of not only standard deviations but also leading and falling‐behind groups classified by the cluster analysis. The discriminant competitiveness graphic‐based representation of the indicator performance allowed policy makers to formulate infrastructure strategies. Simulated experiments based on the competitiveness data of Canada, Taiwan and Thailand also demonstrated that such ranking resulted in a better selection of weak indicators for improvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.186 · 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