Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to facilitate a discussion around how big data technologies and data from citizens can be used to help public administration, society, and policy-making to improve community's lives. This paper discusses opportunities and challenges of big data strategies for government, society, and policy-making. It employs the presentation of numerous practical examples from different parts of the world, where public-service delivery has seen transformation and where initiatives have been taken forward that have revolutionized the way governments at different levels engage with the citizens, and how governments and civil society have adopted evidence-driven policy-making through innovative and efficient use of big data analytics. The examples include the governments of the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and India, and different levels of government agencies in the public services of fraud detection, financial market analysis, healthcare and public health, government oversight, education, crime fighting, environmental protection, energy exploration, agriculture, weather forecasting, and ecosystem management. The examples also include smart cities in Korea, China, Japan, India, Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. This paper makes some recommendations about how big data strategies transform the government and public services to become more citizen-centric, responsive, accountable and transparent.
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 | 0.071 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".