Assessment of national innovation capabilities of OECD countries using trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy ELECTRE III method
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
Purpose For a nation to become a superpower, it's scientific and technological advancement is essential. Each country is exploring how to improve themselves in terms of science and technology. The authors analyzed the innovation capabilities of 35 OECD countries that have not recently joined Lithuania. Design/methodology/approach In recent years, a lot of research work has been done on trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy sets (TIT-2 FS), and many research works have been published. The trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy set helps effectively to represent the uncertainty comparatively than the type-1 fuzzy set. Taking advantage of this effectiveness, the authors extend the best multi-criteria decision making method (MCDM) for trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Here, ELimination and Choice Expressing REality III (ELECTRE III) method in the trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy set environment is proposed. Findings This analysis helps to the OECD countries to develop their level of innovation in the criteria. The authors are making this evaluation for the year 2018 based on the 31 criteria. Application of the proposed method expressed by evaluation of the national innovation capability problem. Based on the obtained results, the top five countries are United States, Switzerland, Canada, Germany and Japan. Originality/value The authors collected required data from different available data sources like OECD, IMD, USPTO, ITU and surveyed data reported by KISTEP. After collecting all the data from different sources, the authors calculated the standard values as KISTEP. After converting the standard values into trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy values, the authors construct a decision matrix based on these values. Then, the authors determined the possibility mean values and preference. Then, they calculated the concordance and discordance credibility degree values. Finally, they ranked OECD countries by the net credibility degree. The results are computed by using the MATLAB software.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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