MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801042578 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v7n3p94

The Influence of the Two-child Policy on China’s Population Projection

2018· article· en· W2801042578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hao Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processChinaPopulationPopulation projectionEntropy (arrow of time)EconometricsComputer scienceOperations researchEconomicsMathematicsPolitical sciencePopulation growthSociologyDemographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since January 1,2016, China has implemented the Two-child policy. The Two-child policy is contrast to the One-child policy which has been implemented for nearly 30 years by Chinese government. Since this Two-child policy is a basic national policy of China, its purpose is to determine a reasonable rate of population development. Whether the two-child policy can really achieve the desired effect. This article will discuss statistical methods and social realities.Firstly, author uses the entropy weight with Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) method. Eighteen indicators affecting the population were set up to establish an initial evaluation matrix according to the actual situation and determine the accurate weight of each indicator.Secondly, the author makes predictions on China’s future population. In order to make sure the accuracy of the forecast, author makes second forecast of the modified value to reduce the noise caused by the entropy weight method. And the author discusses which method is suit for this question.Finally, author analyzes this situation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207