KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Alphanumeric Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

Analysis of The Countries According to The Prosperity Level with Data Mining

Şebnem KOLTAN YILMAZ
Sibel ŞENER
Sayfa
85–104
Yayın Tarihi
2022-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It has been determined that Turkey is located in the middle prosperity level cluster and its "health, living conditions, education" indicators are the highest, while its "natural environment, personal freedom, management" indicators are the lowest.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Data mining (DM) includes techniques for finding meaningful information hidden in these massive data stacks.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this context, the 2019 data of 167 countries within the 12 prosperity indicators in The Legatum Prosperity Index (LPI) were used.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It has been determined that Turkey is located in the middle prosperity level cluster and its "health, living conditions, education" indicators are the highest, while its "natural environment, personal freedom, management" indicators are the lowest.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Data Mining · Prosperity Level · Legatum Prosperity Index

Abstract

Data mining (DM) includes techniques for finding meaningful information hidden in these massive data stacks. The aim of this study is to divide the countries into groups according to their prosperity levels with Cluster Analysis (CA), which is one of the DM techniques, and to show the applicability of the method. In this context, the 2019 data of 167 countries within the 12 prosperity indicators in The Legatum Prosperity Index (LPI) were used. In the study, countries were divided into groups with the Ward’s algorithm and the similarities between the countries were determined with the K-Means and Turkey's place in the groups was determined. The results show that countries are divided into three clusters according to their prosperity levels. The most effective indicators in dividing them into clusters are "market access and infrastructure, education, investment environment", and the least effective indicators are "social capital, natural environment, safety and security". It has been determined that Turkey is located in the middle prosperity level cluster and its "health, living conditions, education" indicators are the highest, while its "natural environment, personal freedom, management" indicators are the lowest.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YILMAZ, Ş. K., ŞENER, S. (2022). Analysis of The Countries According to The Prosperity Level with Data Mining. Alphanumeric Journal, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 85–104. https://ajindex.com/articles/874498

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Abu Sharkh, M. and Gough, I. (2010). Global welfare regimes a cluster analysis. Global Social Policy, 10(1), 27–58.
  2. Akar, S. (2014). Türkiye’de daha iyi yaşam endeksi: OECD ülkeleri ile karşilaştirma (The better life index in Turkey: Comparison with OECD countries). Journal of Life Economics, 1, 1-12.
  3. Akar, H. (2015). Farklılaşan refah ölçüm yöntemleri ve eğitim açısından Türkiye’nin değerlendirilmesi (The diversifying measures of welfare and evaluation of Turkey in the context of education). Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 52(606), 21-38.
  4. Akkuş, B. and Zontul, M. (2019). Veri madenciliği yöntemleri ile ülkeleri gelişmişlik ölçütlerine göre kümeleme üzerine bir uygulama (An application on clustering countries with data mining methods based on development criteria). AURUM Mühendislik Sistemleri ve Mimarlık Dergisi, 3(1), 51-64.
  5. Albayrak, A. S. and Koltan Yılmaz, Ş. (2009). Veri madenciliği: Karar ağacı algoritmaları ve İMKB verileri üzerine bir uygulama (Data mining: Decision tree algorithms and an application on ISE data). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 31-52.
  6. Ali, H. H. and Kadhum, L.E. (2017). K-Means clustering algorithm applications in data mining and pattern recognition. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 6(8), 1577-1584.
  7. Alptekin, N. and Yeşilaydın, G. (2015). OECD ülkelerinin sağlık göstergelerine göre bulanık kümeleme analizi ile sınıflandırılması (Classifying OECD countries according to health indicators using fuzzy clustering analysis). İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 137-155.
  8. Bambra, C. (2007). Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 326–338.
  9. BLI, Better Life Index (2019). “What’s the Better Life Index?”, http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/about/better-life-initiative/, (Accessed Date: 28.12. 2020).
  10. Budsaratragoon, P. and Jitmaneeroj, B. (2021). Reform priorities for prosperity of nations: The Legatum Index. Journal of Policy Modeling, 43, 657–672.
  11. Büchs, M. (2021). Sustainable welfare: Independence between growth and welfare has to go both ways. Global Social Policy, 21(2), 323-327.
  12. Demiralay, M. and Çamurcu, A. Y. (2005).
  13. CURE, AGNES ve K-Means algoritmalarındaki kümeleme yeteneklerinin karşılaştırılması (Comparison of clustering characteristics of CURE, AGNES and K-Means algorithms). İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(8), 1-18.
  14. Değirmenci, N. and Yakıcı Ayan, T. (2020). OECD ülkelerinin s