Designing a Mixed Model (ANP-SWOT) to Evaluate Practical Scenarios in the Development of Rural Cooperatives in Iran
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
Rural cooperatives as a small member-owned organizations are the potential to facilitate socio-economic development in rural areas. This study presents a novel hybrid method to develop strategies for development of rural cooperatives. It combines SWOT analysis, TOWS strategic alternatives matrix, and the analytic network process (ANP). SWOT was used to analyze the external and internal environment of rural cooperatives in Iran using the contributions of a team of experts. This team identified 19 SWOT sub-factors. A TOWS matrix was then constructed and the internal and external environmental sub-factors were combined to create good strategic alternatives. The expert team used the TOWS matrix to identify 11 strategic alternatives. ANP was applied to prioritize the strategic alternatives. According to the experts’ team, the presented combined approach helps managers to choose the best alternative strategies considering both internal and environmental factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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