MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767913911 · doi:10.31253/te.v1i1.20

Analisis Performance Fuzzy Tsukamoto Dalam Klasifikasi Bantuan Kemiskinan

2017· article· en· W2767913911 on OpenAlexaff
Sri Redjeki

Bibliographic record

VenueTech-E · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyFuzzy inference systemFuzzy logicMeaning (existential)StatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsPsychologyEconomicsArtificial intelligenceEconomic growthFuzzy control systemAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) showed that the poverty rate in Indonesia in September 2014 still high at about 27.7 million people, or about 10.96%. As a basis for policy countermeasures, understand the problem of poverty often demands the effort of defining, measuring, and identifying the root causes of poverty. This study wanted to use one of the methods that exist in fuzzy logic to classify beneficiaries of poverty that exist in Bantul. Fuzzy Inference System used in this study using Tsukamoto with 8 rule established by a group of poor criteria and types of poverty relief. There are three groups of criteria of poverty derived from 11 criteria of poverty in Bantul. While the types of assistance that are used are Raskin, BLT and KUR. The system is built using PHP. To see the performance Tsukamoto method in this study used 50 data poor people in Sub Districs Banguntapan. From the test results turned out to obtained an accuracy of 52%, meaning that there were 26 correct data according to the original data. It is necessary to modify the rules and membership functions to improve system accuracy results

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTech-ESame topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207