Targeting Poverty and Developing Sustainable Development Objectives for the United Nation’s Countries using a Systematic Approach Combining DRSA and Multiple Linear Regressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this article is to target poverty using Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) to help the United Nation’s Countries develop objectives for sustainable development. There are 12 variables divided into 2 perspectives. The first is an economical and technological perspective composed of 6 variables. The second is a sociological and political perspective composed of 6 variables. The methodology proposed classifies all the United Nation’s countries according to three different categories: [A] Developed countries; [B] Emerging economies that need support to acquire category A status; [C] Under Developed countries ranked the lowest and needing special support with regard to the criterion or criteria considered. Using this classification, DRSA provides decision rules to explain the classification and indicating precisely what are the conditions to be part of a higher category. Also, the results indicate what are the conditions to be part of the Under Developed countries category and therefore helps targeting poverty and proposing, at the same time, objectives to improve this classification. Finally, we used Multiple Linear Regressions with selected decision rules to test selected decision rules as the Gross National Income per capita as the dependent variable.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".