Assessment and statistical modeling of economic quality index based on deep learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of economic quality is of great significance in grasping the state of national economic development at a macro level. This paper focuses on exploring the assessment methods of economic quality and introducing deep learning models to improve the shortcomings of the traditional economic quality assessment in the assessment process. The economic quality assessment system is constructed from five dimensions, including economic vitality, and the MIV indicator values are improved by combining set-pair analysis and generalized regression neural network, so as to realize the automatic screening of economic quality evaluation indicators. According to the screening results of the indicators, the hierarchical analysis method is used to assign weights to the indicators, and the comprehensive index of economic quality is measured based on the results of the assignment.From 2012 to 2022, the economic quality of the 30 provinces in China shows an upward trend as a whole, and the comprehensive index of economic quality in 2022 is 0.90, which is an increase of 52.54% compared with that in 2012. The assessment results are consistent with the actual results, indicating that the method of this paper can effectively complete the measurement and assessment of the economic quality index, which is important for the study of economic quality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".