Cricket ODI World Cup 2023 Prediction Using TOPSIS Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current research uses TOPSIS to evaluate 14 Cricket World Cup 2023 teams. Data from the Espn Cricinfo website was used in this analysis. A comprehensive set of criteria (P1 to P11) was used to evaluate each squad, encompassing various game aspects. A numerical labeling system (A1 to A14) and parameter system (P1 to P11) were used to idenMfy team names and qualiMes more efficiently. The research calculates the normalized matrix and weighted matrix, then finds the best and worst values using TOPSIS. A normalized matrix creates a consistent and uniform framework for evaluaMng and comparing factors, ensuring imparMality and jusMficaMon. In contrast, the weighted matrix integrates each criterion's proporMonal importance into the evaluaMon process. For each criterion, the ideal best and ideal worst values indicate the best and worst performance. The TOPSIS analysis placed Australia first, Bangladesh second, and New Zealand third. In fourth and fiXh place were India and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan, West Indies, England, South Africa, and Pakistan rated sixth to tenth. Nepal was tenth, Ireland, the US, and Zimbabwe fourteenth.To understand team performance, the TOPSIS technique must be accepted. It is important to acknowledge that the Cricket World Cup 2023 results may vary owing to many factors. This study provides a systematic and comprehensive approach to team performance, making it a useful resource for cricket fans and experts interested in the event's competitive dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".