MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385400251 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180707

Economic Security Management for Sustainable Planning

2023· article· en· W4385400251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kateryna Manuilova, Volodymyr Motornyy, Oleg Koval, Oleh Mykytyn, Yuriy Norchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental securityEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable development is one of the most important challenges facing mankind today.The essence of sustainable development is to maximize economic and social benefits while protecting the environment and ensuring the long-term sustainable use of natural resources.In economic terms, sustainable development means not only the growth of the national economy and per capita income, but also improvements in all aspects of social security.The main purpose of this study is to model the assessment of the negative impact of threats on the information space of sustainable development planning within the context of managing economic security in a given socio-economic system.The research methodology involves the use of modern econometric methods based on fuzzy relations theory.This methodology fully contributed to achieving the set goals and resulted in justifying the application of weighted measures for each class of security threats in the information support system for sustainable development planning.Additionally, it was shown to be expedient to develop a clear plan for organizing information space protection while ensuring a balance between the level of information risk and the acceptable costs of ensuring economic security during planning for sustainable development in a given socio-economic system.This study has limitations, and they are related to the narrowness of identified threats and the choice of only one specific socio-economic system as an example.These aspects should be broadened in future research.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207