MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379259365 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2023.4.003

Modeling of citizen science cluster in making decision for readiness towards bogor smart village: An application of fuzzy c-means algorithm

2023· article· en· W4379259365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eneng Tita Tosida, Riko Setiawan, Irma Anggraeni, Roni Jayawinangun, Sukono Sukono, Jumadil Saputra

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Data Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi
KeywordsCluster (spacecraft)CategorizationCitizen journalismFuzzy logicCluster analysisIndonesianComputer scienceSmart cityValue (mathematics)BusinessKnowledge managementEnvironmental economicsMarketingInternet of ThingsArtificial intelligenceEconomicsMachine learningComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of smart villages has begun in many Indonesian villages, along with the advancement of technology and local economic growth. Villagers must participate in constructing the smart economy-smart village by becoming familiar with the characteristics of the village's inhabitants using the citizen science model. This study intends to categorize villagers so that researchers can assess and decide their level of readiness for a smart economy in an ecosystem based on a smart village. Clustering is required to find communities of residents who are ready based on their traits. Using fuzzy C-Means with a Davied Bouldin Index value of 0.129, the data were divided into 4 clusters. The most important variables were chosen using information from the test's 300 responders, and the Kaiser Mayer Olkin assumption of 0.975 was used to validate the results. Our paper provides new information on how smart village readiness is assessed by the citizen science cluster. It was decided to divide residents into four groups: those who are less prepared (24.33%), those who are somewhat prepared (29.33%), those who are ready ( 25.67%) %), those who are ready (level of participatory knowledge), and those who are very ready for the smart economy (20.67%) based on the cluster model.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicInformation Retrieval and Data MiningFrench-language works237,207