MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115843551 · doi:10.1108/dta-07-2020-0154

Assessment of national innovation capabilities of OECD countries using trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy ELECTRE III method

2020· article· en· W3115843551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeonghwan Jeon

Bibliographic record

VenueData Technologies and Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsELECTREInterval (graph theory)Fuzzy setFuzzy logicOriginalityValue (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Multiple-criteria decision analysisOperations researchComputer scienceMathematicsData miningActuarial scienceStatisticsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceSocial scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Technologies and ApplicationsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207