A rating analysis of the APEC countries on the basis of sustainable development indicators
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a rating analysis of socio-ecological and economic systems (SEES) of the APEC countries on the basis of sustainable development indicators. For an objective analysis and a correct comparison of different-sized sustainable development indicators proposed by the UN Commission on sustainable development and the World Bank the information folding procedure has been used which provides the use of a generalized desirability function. The calculated values of a generalized desirability function allowed to assess the socio-ecological and economic status of the APEC countries. The rating of the studied countries for 2007-2016 is as follows: New Zealand Peru Australia Chile Canada Russia Malaysia Mexico Thailand Philippines Vietnam Indonesia USA Republic of Korea Japan Singapore China. The SWOT analysis has revealed strengths and weaknesses, identified threats and promising opportunities for environmental, economic and socio-demographic development of the APEC countries as a single regional entity. The rating of the countries made on the basis of a set of sustainable development indicators with the use of a generalized desirability function is confirmed and analytically explained by the SWOT analysis which is considered to be a method of strategic planning of regional development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it