ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Analysis on the Development of Digital Economy in Guangdong Province Based on Improved Entropy Method and Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel MADM model integrating hybrid information for evaluating the development prospects of urban new energy vehicles.PloS one · 2025Article
- Spatial analysis of digital economy and its driving factors: A case study of the Yangtze River Delta City Cluster in China.PloS one · 2024Article
- Moving towards Environmental Sustainability: Can Digital Economy Reduce Environmental Degradation in China?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Estimation and Potential Analysis of Land Population Carrying Capacity in Shanghai Metropolis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Entropy analysis and grey cluster analysis of multiple indexes of 5 kinds of genuine medicinal materials.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The lack of adequate indicators in the research of digital economy may lead to the shortage of data support on decision making for governments. To solve this problem, first we establish a digital economy indicator evaluation system by dividing the digital economy into four types: "basic type", "technology type", "integration type" and "service type" and select 5 indicators for each type. On this basis, the weight of each indicator is calculated to find the deficiencies in the development of some digital economic fields by the improved entropy method. By drawing on the empowerment idea of Analytic Hierarchy Process, the improved entropy method firstly compares the difference coefficient of indicators in pairs and maps the comparison results to the scales 1-9. Then, the judgment matrix is constructed based on the information entropy, which can solve as much as possible the problem that the difference among the weight of each indicator is too large in traditional entropy method. The results indicate that: the development of digital economy in Guangdong Province was relatively balanced from 2015 to 2018 and will be better in the future while the development of rural e-commerce in Guangdong Province is relatively backward, and there is an obvious digital gap between urban and rural areas. Next we extract two new variables respectively to replace the 20 indicators we select through principal component analysis and factor analysis methods in multivariate statistical analysis, which can retain the original information to the greatest extent and provide convenience for further research in the future. Finally, we and provide constructive comments of digital economy in Guangdong Province from 2015 to 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.