Comparative Analysis between Quality of Life and Human Labor in Countries Belonging to G7 and BRICS Blocks: Proposition of Discriminant Analysis Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present research is to identify and analyze the variables which help to effectively differentiate Quality of Life (QoL) and human labor in the G7 (Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States of America—USA) and BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) through a discriminant analysis. A discriminant analysis model is developed to classify countries as having a low, mid, or high QoL based on QoL and human labor variables. The variables used in the discriminant analysis were obtained between 2010 and 2022 from two platforms: NUMBEO variables capable of relating QoL to socioeconomic aspects and OECD’s (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) human-labor-related variables. Based on the results, the three variables that most discriminate the groups in order of importance are employed women in relation to the female population, the female labor force participation rate, and the female unemployment rate. Countries are classified as having a low, mid, or high QoL. The adopted technique will allow researchers and managers to classify and draw goals for action reorganization and investment in QoL and labor.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".