MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415360527 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v5i1.1436

Application of the Apriori Algorithm to Determine Public Service Patterns at the Subdistrict Office

2025· article· W4415360527 on OpenAlexaff
Akim Manaor Hara Pardede, Zira Fatmaira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Government (linguistics)Association rule learningApriori algorithmType of serviceQueue

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public services at the sub-district office are a form of direct interaction between the government and the community. One of the public services is administrative services such as issuing ID cards, family cards, document legalization, domicile certificates, and SKTM certificates. At the Hamparan Perak District Office, there are several major issues that frequently arise in public services, including long waiting times, many citizens complaining about the length of service due to long queues and processes that are still conducted manually. The lack of service management due to the absence of a clear pattern in public services leads to an imbalance in the allocation of resources and manpower. By using the Apriori Algorithm, patterns of interrelated services can be identified, enabling the subdistrict office to optimize its service system. The Apriori Algorithm works by identifying frequently used service combinations (frequent itemsets) and forming association rules, thereby providing recommendations for service improvement. This method can improve service efficiency by identifying which services are frequently used together. Through testing using the RapidMiner application, this study identified age, gender, occupation, address, type of service, service time, and application status. The results show that 248 association rules were formed, with the highest Best Rule value of 5% support and 82% confidence on 3 item sets. The rule states: “If gender is male and age is between 56 and 46 years, then the application status is ‘Processed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207