MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174035125 · doi:10.31181/oresta20402055a

Evaluation of OECD Countries with Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in terms of Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects

2021· article· en· W3174035125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Talip Arsu, Ejder Ayçın

Bibliographic record

VenueOperational Research in Engineering Sciences Theory and Applications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)CompromiseHomogeneousOrder (exchange)Cluster (spacecraft)Test (biology)Scope (computer science)GeographyEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer scienceMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exhausted natural resources and deteriorating ecological balance, together with the social privileges that people expect to have, are proof that the development of countries cannot be reduced to economic development alone. In this respect, this study aimed to evaluate the economic, social and environmental aspects of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Within this scope, the countries were firstly divided into two groups by performing cluster analysis in order to create more homogeneous country groups. Then, 12 criteria, consisting of four economic, four social and four environmental criteria, were determined by considering the literature and expert opinions. The criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) method was used to weight the determined criteria and using the calculated criterion weights, the countries in each cluster were then evaluated with the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method. As a result, the most successful countries in the first cluster were determined as Switzerland, Denmark and Ireland with 68.8%, 62.7% and 62.5% performance scores, respectively. Whereas, the most unsuccessful countries were USA, Canada and Australia with 49.8%, 50.0% and 50.1% performance scores, respectively. The most successful countries in the second cluster were found as Slovenia, Spain and Portugal with 65.9%, 65.5% and 64.5% performance scores, while the most unsuccessful countries were Turkey, Chile and Colombia with 45.9%, 55.4% and 55.9% performance scores, respectively. Finally, in order to test the sensitivity of the MARCOS method, the solution was repeated with the MAIRCA, WASPAS, MABAC and CoCoSo methods using the weights obtained by the CRITIC method. A high correlation (greater than 80%) was found between the rankings acquired using the other methods and the rankings obtained by the MARCOS method.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperational Research in Engineering Sciences Theory and ApplicationsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207