Constructing digital economy acceptance index (DEAI): A comparative analysis of developed and developing countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The digital economy is a phenomenon that has emerged in today's modern era. Digitalization is expected to be able to support the progress of the economic aspect. However, it turns out that not all people in parts of the world are able to keep up with this change in the phenomenon of economic digitalization. This study aims to identify, classify, and analyze the factors that influence the conditions of acceptance of the digital economy in developed and developing countries as measured through the Digital Economy Acceptance Index (DEAI). This research used a quantitative approach with research objects from countries in the world during the past years. The methods used in this research are composite index and multivariate statistical cluster analysis. The results showed that countries with high DEAI consisted of the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Singapore. Countries with moderate DEAI consist of Greece, Italy, Portugal, Brunei Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Libya, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Iran. As well as countries that have low DEAI, namely Cambodia, Myanmar, Egypt, Laos, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".