Classification Insights

Decision-tree evidence for selected CSIS service indicators.

Awareness
Locality Filter All Mindanao records · 4500 of 4500 records
Locality Filter All Mindanao records

Showing 4500 of 4500 respondent records. Predictive model scores remain the full-sample reference unless retraining is explicitly run.

Choose a Question to Review

Select a service area, service stage, and survey question. Advanced factor settings are optional.

Question-level result
These selectors apply to every tab on this page. For results across all seven service areas, open the Cross-Service Predictor Summary.

Per-Question (Indicator-Level) Classification Review

Each CSIS service indicator represents a specific survey question and is classified separately. Results are grouped by evidence strength so readers can quickly see which findings are usable and which still need validation.

Currently selected question

Delivery of Frontline services

The cards below place this question alongside other questions from the selected service stage, so its evidence strength can be compared fairly.

Awareness

How to read this result

Start with “Ready for interpretation.” Treat “Use with caution” as supporting evidence, and do not make strong claims from indicators that need stronger evidence.

Improvement path for Governance and Response - Awareness
0 Ready for interpretation Use these indicators as the clearest decision-support results.
No indicators fall under this status for the selected view.
6 Use with caution Use these as exploratory patterns and compare them with descriptive evidence.
  • Timely Response on Peace and Order andPublic Safety-related incidents
  • Delivery of Frontline services
  • Conflict and dispute resolution in the barangays
  • Public Information Services
  • Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
  • Traffic Management
2 Needs stronger evidence Do not overstate these indicators; they need more signal before stronger prediction claims.
  • Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
  • Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
Technical and methodology notes

Available data: The current dataset does not include direct access-barrier variables such as distance, waiting time, facility supply, staff interaction, or household service need. The portal should therefore improve the existing evidence first instead of inventing unavailable predictors.

Eligible responses: Stage-specific modeling is applied through the saved stage response files and skip-pattern handling: Awareness uses valid awareness responses; Availment uses the availment stage; Satisfaction and Need for Action are interpreted only for respondents who reached the service-use stage.

Predictor selection: The decision-tree pipeline now enriches the general profile and citizen-segment predictors with available service-context evidence when applicable: health background variables for Health Services, education background variables for Support to Education, and crime, disaster, corruption, and citizen-attitude evidence for Governance and Response. Feature selection remains part of the model search, while chi-square is kept in the citizen segment evidence area as profile-cluster support.

Model comparison: Recommended model comparison: keep Decision Tree as the official explanation model, then add Random Forest as a performance benchmark and Logistic Regression as a simple baseline. If another model improves ROC AUC or recall, report it as supporting evidence while keeping the decision tree for readable rules.

What the Model Found

For Governance and Response - Awareness, the summary combines 8 indicator-specific decision-tree model(s). Mean F1 is 74.8% and mean ROC AUC is 59.7%, so the result should be read as an overall tendency across indicators. The indicator-level rows remain the main evidence for decision-support use.

Use the mean scores for the general story; use the indicator rows for the actual evidence.

Stage eligibility is handled before modeling: Awareness uses all valid Yes/No responses; Availment uses Awareness = Yes; Satisfaction and Need for Action use Awareness = Yes and Availment = Yes. Skip-pattern values such as 95-99 are excluded from the target class.

  • Mean precision is 77.6%, indicating strong when an indicator model predicts the positive service outcome.
  • Mean recall is 74.5%, meaning some indicator models may still miss actual positive cases, especially when recall is lower than precision.
  • Mean F1 score is 74.8%, which balances precision and recall across the indicator models.
  • Mean ROC AUC is 59.7%, showing how well the indicator models separate outcome groups across thresholds on average.
  • Top predictors currently include Need Further Action, Satisfied/Not Satisfied, MCA Dim1, I greatly benefit from the services provided by our local government., Place of Work. These variables are useful signals for explaining which respondent profiles are linked to the selected service outcome.
  • The current classification pipeline also includes up to 18 service-context predictor(s) for this view, so the model is no longer limited to general profile and cluster variables.
  • Interpretation: the model has limited separation power. Use the predictors as exploratory clues and validate findings with descriptive charts and local service context.

Key Influencing Factors

These factors contributed most strongly to how the model separated the survey responses. They show association, not proof of cause.
  • Delivery of Frontline services
    Need Further Action
    0.8458
  • Delivery of Frontline services
    Satisfied/Not Satisfied
    0.1237
  • Delivery of Frontline services
    MCA Dim1
    0.0305
  • Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
    Need Further Action
    0.2876
  • Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
    I greatly benefit from the services provided by our local government.
    0.0977
  • Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
    Place of Work
    0.0971
  • Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
    Need Further Action
    0.649
  • Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
    MCA Dim2
    0.1801

Key-Factor Strength Chart

Show how strongly each available factor influenced the model result.

Optional detail

Key Influencing Factors

Decision Tree Interpretation

Read the tree together with its plain-language insights.

Predictors shown in the simplified tree MCA Dim1 MCACluster
Simplified decision tree visualization

Evidence Tables

Show readiness review, indicator metrics, rule reference, and diagnostics.

Optional detail

Model Readiness Review

This table explains whether each indicator has enough signal for decision-support use and why some results should remain exploratory.
Indicator Signal Quality (F1 / ROC AUC / Recall / Baseline) Meaning Majority Response (Baseline Class) Eligible Records Baseline Accuracy (Majority Guess) Model Accuracy Gain (Model - Baseline) Possible Cause Suggested Data Improvement
G1_GGPv
Timely Response on Peace and Order andPublic Safety-related incidents
Moderate signal The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited. Yes / Positive (87.7%) 4350 87.7% 79.5% -8.2 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPi
Delivery of Frontline services
Moderate signal The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited. Yes / Positive (84.0%) 4500 84.0% 79.0% -4.9 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPiv
Conflict and dispute resolution in the barangays
Moderate signal The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited. Yes / Positive (83.8%) 4200 83.8% 77.0% -6.8 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPviii
Public Information Services
Moderate signal The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited. Yes / Positive (70.3%) 4200 70.3% 65.2% -5.1 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPvii
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Moderate signal The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited. Yes / Positive (76.3%) 4350 76.3% 64.0% -12.3 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPii
Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
Limited signal The model can be reviewed as an exploratory clue, but F1, ROC AUC, or baseline gain is not strong enough for confident prediction. Yes / Positive (63.8%) 4050 63.8% 61.9% -1.9 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPvi
Traffic Management
Moderate signal The model has some useful signal based on F1 and ROC AUC, but separation between outcome groups is still limited. Yes / Positive (61.6%) 4050 61.6% 61.2% -0.4 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.
G1_GGPiii
Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
Needs more predictors The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Yes / Positive (69.1%) 4050 69.1% 42.3% -26.7 pts The result may be close to the majority-class baseline, meaning the model adds limited separation beyond the most common response. Add or review awareness-source, barangay information channel, distance, and program availability variables for Governance and Response.

Indicator-Level Metrics

How the mean scores are formed

The AVG values summarize 8 indicator model(s) for Governance and Response - Awareness. They describe the overall pattern across indicators, not the result of one specific indicator.

Average F1 is 74.8%, which gives the most balanced quick reading because it considers both correct positive predictions and missed positive cases.

Average ROC AUC is 59.7%, so the model should be read as decision-support evidence. Values closer to 50% mean the predictors have limited ability to separate the outcome groups.

Average accuracy is 66.3%, precision is 77.6%, and recall is 74.5%. Compare the indicator rows below to see which indicators are stronger or weaker than the AVG.

Target Indicator Accuracy Precision Recall F1 ROC AUC CV F1 Best CV F1 Selected Features Base Predictors Service Context Total Predictors Depth Leaf Criterion
G1_GGPv Timely Response on Peace and Order andPublic Safety-related incidents 79.5% 90.1% 86.1% 88.0% 61.3% 89.0% 88.3% 8 17 18 35 3 10 gini
G1_GGPi Delivery of Frontline services 79.0% 86.6% 88.7% 87.6% 65.0% 83.6% 88.5% 8 17 18 35 3 10 entropy
G1_GGPiv Conflict and dispute resolution in the barangays 77.0% 86.7% 85.8% 86.2% 61.6% 74.3% 84.0% 8 17 18 35 5 10 entropy
G1_GGPviii Public Information Services 65.2% 75.3% 75.4% 75.3% 61.8% 75.3% 76.3% all 17 18 35 3 10 entropy
G1_GGPvii Disaster Risk Reduction and Management 64.0% 81.1% 68.8% 74.4% 63.4% 79.9% 77.9% 8 17 18 35 5 35 entropy
G1_GGPii Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU 61.9% 65.6% 84.7% 73.9% 54.6% 57.2% 68.7% all 17 18 35 5 10 entropy
G1_GGPvi Traffic Management 61.2% 65.9% 76.6% 70.9% 58.1% 62.6% 72.0% 8 17 18 35 3 10 gini
G1_GGPiii Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays 42.3% 69.1% 30.0% 41.8% 51.7% 59.1% 72.9% 8 17 18 35 3 10 gini

Decision Rule Reference

Some tree rules use coded profile values. Read the tree from top to bottom, then use this reference to translate the rule into respondent-friendly meaning.
Code Meaning Code Values / Variable Type How to Read the Split
Dim1 MCA profile dimension 1 A combined respondent-profile score from MCA. It is not a single survey question. Dim1 <= 0.801 follows one side of the profile map; values above 0.801 follow the other side.
MCACluster_4 Citizen segment Cluster membership from the citizen segmentation model. Use this as a respondent segment indicator, not as a direct survey answer.

Gini Split Diagnostics

Node Type Rule Gini Samples Not Aware Aware Prediction
0 Split Dim1 <= 0.801 0.5 4500 0.5 0.5 Aware
1 Split Dim1 <= -0.689 0.4997 3876 0.5 0.5 Aware
2 Split Dim1 <= -0.858 0.4952 583 0.5 0.5 Not Aware
3 Leaf Prediction 0.471 86 0.4 0.6 Aware
4 Leaf Prediction 0.4897 497 0.6 0.4 Not Aware
5 Split Dim1 <= -0.554 0.4988 3293 0.5 0.5 Aware
6 Leaf Prediction 0.4824 675 0.4 0.6 Aware
7 Leaf Prediction 0.4999 2618 0.5 0.5 Aware
8 Split MCACluster_4 <= 0.500 0.491 624 0.6 0.4 Not Aware
9 Split Dim1 <= 1.086 0.4953 531 0.5 0.5 Not Aware
10 Leaf Prediction 0.4917 70 0.4 0.6 Aware
11 Leaf Prediction 0.4921 461 0.6 0.4 Not Aware
12 Split Dim1 <= 1.202 0.4501 93 0.7 0.3 Not Aware
13 Leaf Prediction 0.3947 50 0.7 0.3 Not Aware
14 Leaf Prediction 0.496 43 0.5 0.5 Not Aware