Customer Segmentation of Bank Based on Discovering of Their Transactional Relation by Using Data Mining Algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, based on financial transactions between bank customers which extracted from bank’s databases we have developed the relational transaction graph and customer’s transactional communication network has been created. Furthermore, using data mining algorithms and evaluation parameters in social network concepts lead us for segmenting of bank customers. The main goal in this research is bank customer’s segmentation by discovering the transactional relationship between them in order to deliver some specified solutions in benefit of some policy about customers equality in banking system; in other words improvement of customer relationship management to determination of strategies and business risk management are the main concept of this research. By evaluation of Customer segments, banking system will consider more efficient and crucial factors in decision process to estimate more accurate credential of each group of customers and will grant more appropriate types and amount of loan services to them therefore it is expected these solutions will reduce the risk of loan service in banks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it