article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—The importance of social security and social welfare business has been increasingly recognized in more and more coun-tries. It impinges on a large proportion of the population and affects government service policies and people’s life quality. Typical wel-fare countries, such as Australia and Canada, have accumulated a huge amount of social security and social welfare data. Emerging business issues such as fraudulent outlays, and customer service and performance improvements challenge existing policies, as well as techniques and systems including data matching and business intelligence reporting systems. The need for a deep understand-ing of customers and customer–government interactions through advanced data analytics has been increasingly recognized by the community at large. So far, however, no substantial work on the mining of social security and social welfare data has been reported. For the first time in data mining and machine learning, and to the best of our knowledge, this paper draws a comprehensive overall picture and summarizes the corresponding techniques and illustra-tions to analyze social security/welfare data, namely, social security data mining (SSDM), based on a thorough review of a large number of related references from the past half century. In particular, we introduce an SSDM framework, including business and research issues, social security/welfare services and data, as well as chal-lenges, goals, and tasks in mining social security/welfare data. A summary of SSDM case studies is also presented with substan-tial citations that direct readers to more specific techniques and practices about SSDM. Index Terms—Data mining, government data mining, public sec-tor, public service, social security data mining (SSDM), social se-curity, social welfare, social welfare data mining. I.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.688 | 0.504 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".