WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 2 | 3 || 5 | 6 |   ...   | 11 |

34

7

0

24

0

4

8

0

9

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

89


2

10

0

0

9

7

17

3

0

0

1

0

12

1

0

0

0

60


3

6

15

0

4

1

0

13

0

4

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

45


4

0

0

5

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6


5

0

0

0

0

16

1

0

0

0

3

0

10

8

0

8

0

46


6

0

7

0

0

0

0

12

0

31

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

53


7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2


8

1

0

0

6

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

14


9

2

1

0

2

0

0

6

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

16


10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

4

0

8

0

0

0

19


11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

8

0

0

0

0

0

10


12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

4

0

1

11


13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2


14

0

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

6


15

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

3


16

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1


53

31

5

45

25

22

48

5

53

13

12

25

17

12

14

3

The volume of information contained in oneclassification of the other one accounts for 1.552 bit. Since entropy of theclassification based upon original data accounts for 3.243 bit, while the oneof the >

Whereas the mass of information ofclassifications built using Ward Linkage method is slightly greater than theone of >

Classification of regions by livingstandards. Quantitative analysis of clusters built foradjusted indicators using Ward Linkage method (see Annex 2) shows that from theperspective of differentiation of living standards, the clusters can beattributed to several fairly homogenous, in terms of economic development,groups. We singled out such groups by means of comparison and ranking (acrossall the clusters) adjusted values of the three living standards indicatorsconcerned). Specifically, we identified 5 groups of clusters, asfollows:

  1. Regions with low living standards (clusters 5, 6, 10, 11, 12,13)
  2. Regions with high living standards (clusters 3, 8, 14,16)
  3. Regions with a low level of poverty, but also with a low level ofpopulation’s incomesand spending (clusters 2 and 9)
  4. Regions with a high level poverty, but also with a high level ofpopulation’s incomesand spending (cluster 15)
  5. Regions with medium level of living standards (clusters 1,4,7)

Singling out economically homogenous groupsof clusters, i.e. contraction in the number of group of regions with ahomogenous level of differentiation of living standards simplifies the task ofdynamic >

Table 3.1.6. Movement of RF Subjects acrossgroups of clusters resulted from clusterization according to Ward Linkage andbased on adjusted data for 1995-999

Regions

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Republic of Karelia

5

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 2 | 3 || 5 | 6 |   ...   | 11 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .