MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414439513 · doi:10.1145/3769114

E-Government Systems to Improve Citizen-to-Public Administration Communication: A Literature Review

2025· review· en· W4414439513 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Diniz, Luís Paulo Reis, Henrique Lopes Cardoso

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Government Research and Practice · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Work (physics)Corporate governanceInformation and Communications TechnologyAdministration (probate law)Digital transformation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cities are growing worldwide, overloading public infrastructure and causing delays and inefficiencies. In this context, public services are increasingly transitioning online, facilitating citizen engagement and feedback. This digital transformation offers numerous advantages, including reduced response times, enhanced citizen satisfaction, and cost savings. The aim of this work is to conduct a comprehensive survey of e-government systems, emphasizing their role in improving communication between citizens and public administration, and to provide insights into trends, gaps, and best practices in this evolving field. This research emphasizes conversational technologies and adopts the Digital Governance framework, which examines how digital tools reshape public administration by improving services, transparency, participation, and efficiency. The review used a structured manual process via Excel, applying criteria to ensure transparent screening and categorization, enabling a focused and adaptable analysis. We found research in several countries indicating that it is a global research trend. The study examines various aspects of e-government systems, including their objectives, implementation level, communication interface, commercial development technology, evaluation method, and metrics utilized. Overall, this review provides valuable insights into the current landscape of e-government systems to improve citizen-to-public administration communication and identifies trends and gaps in this evolving field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Government Research and PracticeSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207