MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394774982 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.2535

A Study On Factors Affecting Exports Of Leather Footwear As A Strong Initiative Of Make In India

2023· article· en· W4394774982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ankita Dubey, Neha Yajurvedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Trade and Competitiveness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“The world economy has become global in nature. Globalization has various manifestations. One of the hallmarks of globalization is the cross-border trade of products and services.India has ample opportunities in the Make in India campaign in the leather footwear sector. The availability of skilled manpower in this sector has motivated investors to manufacture at a large scale. Exports of Leather & Products in India decreased to 33.65 INR Billion in September from 34.05 INR Billion in August 2022.This sector also has the potential to produce approximate six million jobs. Indian leather industry is one of the principal producers of leather footwear globally. The major manufacturing centres in India are Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Delhi, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. The key objective of this paper is to explore opportunities and challenges in Make in India, different factors affecting exports of leather footwear in the leather footwear sector, the initiatives by the government to boost growth in this sector, and emerging trends in this industry. It also focuses on different challenges that this industry faces. A conceptual overview will be understood based on secondary data and reports available.The observations will help in understanding the scope, improvement areas, and challenges to be circumvented to boost this industry and strengthen our Economy. ”

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicGlobal Trade and CompetitivenessFrench-language works237,207