MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800761902 · doi:10.31253/te.v1i2.62

Neural Network Modeling for Family Welfare Classification

2018· article· en· W2800761902 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTech-E · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkBackpropagationConjugate gradient methodComputer scienceGradient descentVariable (mathematics)WelfareMATLABArtificial intelligenceTest dataMachine learningData miningAlgorithmMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welfare in general can be defined as the level of a person's ability to meet their basic needs in the form of clothing, food, boards, education, and health. Welfare can be assessed in terms of family welfare. This study aims to perform analysis of artificial neural network modeling backpropagation method. The model will compare the optimization algorithm of artificial neural network results.
 The data used are 251 data of pre prosperous family in Banguntapan District, Bantul Regency. There are 16 input variables with 14 variables from BPS and 2 additional variables. There is one variable that has constant data so that this variable is not used in artificial neural network model analysis. There is a hidden layer with a number of dynamic neurons. Output layer there are 4 neurons which is the family welfare category. Data is processed using Matlab and SPSS. The system results show that the best accuracy for training is 68% of the Scale Conjugate Gradient algorithm while for best test results it is 68.8% of the Gradient Descent algorithm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.255 · 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