Determining Factors for Slum Growth with Predictive Data Mining Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. Out of these more than four billion people, almost one quarter live in slums or informal settlements. In order to improve living conditions and provide possible solutions for the major problems in slums (e.g., insufficient infrastructure), it is important to understand the current situation of this form of settlement and its development. There are many different models that attempt to simulate the development of slums. In this paper, we present data mining models that correlate information about the temporal development of slums with other economic, ecologic, and demographic factors in order to identify dependencies. Different learning algorithms, such as decision rules and decision trees, are used to learn descriptive models for slum development from data, and the results are evaluated with commonly used attribute evaluation methods known from data mining. The results confirm various previously made statements about slum development in a quantitative way, such as the fact that slum development is very strongly linked to the demographic development of a country. Applying the introduced classification models to the most recent data for different regions, it can be shown that the slum development in Africa is expected to be above average.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".