MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245626804 · doi:10.7816/ulakbilge-09-59-05

MEASURING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF COUNTRIES BY CODAS AND TOPSIS METHODS: G7 GROUP COUNTRIES EXAMPLE

2021· article· en· W4245626804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUlakbilge Dergisi · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISRanking (information retrieval)Multiple-criteria decision analysisContext (archaeology)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEconomicsMathematicsOperations researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the awareness of their environmental performance, countries can provide strategies and policies to improve their environmental performance. Thus, countries can contribute to their own economic development by increasing their environmental performance. Therefore, measuring the environmental performance of countries is of great importance. Environmental performance of countries can be measured by the Environmental Performance Index (EPI). EPI consists of two factors, environmental health and ecosystem vitality. Its factors are environmental protection components, and environmental protection components are environmental protection variables. In this context, the research has two purposes. The first of these,To measure the latest and up-to-date environmental performances of the G7 group countries for 2018, using CODAS and TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM) over the values of EPI components. The second is to determine which MCDM method can be used to explain the EPI values of countries the most. According to the findings, the ranking of countries' environmental performance with the CODAS method was determined as England, France, Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy and the USA. According to the TOPSIS method, this ranking was determined as England, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy and the USA. According to another finding, it has been observed that there is a significant, positive and very high relationship between the EPI values of the countries and the values measured by the CODAS and TOPSIS methods. According to this result, it was evaluated that EPI can be explained by both methods. In addition, it has been concluded that the correlation value between TOPSIS values of EPI within the scope of the research is higher than the CODAS method, so it can be explained better with the TOPSIS method compared to the EPI CODAS method. In the literature, in order not to find a study measuring the environmental performance of countries with CODAS and TOPSIS methods, it was evaluated that the study in question contributed to the literature, since the findings obtained as a result of the research became a data set for future studies. Keywords: Environmental Performance, Environmental Performance Index, CODAS, TOPSIS

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUlakbilge DergisiSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207