MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310447567 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v14n12p84

The Readiness of Malaysia Digital Economy: A Study of Three Government Policies from 1991 to 2020

2022· article· en· W4310447567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bahrulmazi Edrak, Zaamah Mohd Nor, Abdul Rahman Shaik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital economyCommissionGovernment (linguistics)EconomyIndependence (probability theory)Private sectorBusinessNational economyEconomic growthEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic systemFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Malaysian government has foreseen the importance of the digital economy to the nation since 1996. In 1996 and 1998, respectively, the Malaysia Digital Economy Development (MDEC) and Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) were established to regulate the industry and articulate digital economy initiatives both from public and private sectors. This study aims to review the digital economy policies introduced by three governments, i.e. Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Harapan and Perikatan Nasional, since the Independence in 1957 until 2020. Each ruling government has announced its digital economy initiatives as significant contributors to the national economic development. The review of the policies will include the Malaysia Plans, yearly budgets and economic stimulus packages. The outcome of this review will significantly help to evaluate the country’s readiness in embarking on the digital economy, and provide recommendations for future digital economy initiatives.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207