Locality Filter All Mindanao records · 4500 of 4500 records
Choose a Question to Review
Select a service area, service stage, and survey question. Advanced factor settings are optional.
Per-Question (Indicator-Level) Classification Review
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.
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.
- 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
- 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
-
Delivery of Frontline services
Need Further Action -
Delivery of Frontline services
Satisfied/Not Satisfied -
Delivery of Frontline services
MCA Dim1 -
Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
Need Further Action -
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. -
Local government’s response or action oncomplaints against an office,official orpersonnel of the LGU
Place of Work -
Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
Need Further Action -
Mobile LGUservices/Provision ofmunicipal services to the barangays
MCA Dim2
Key-Factor Strength Chart
Show how strongly each available factor influenced the model result.
Optional detail
Key-Factor Strength Chart
Show how strongly each available factor influenced the model result.
Key Influencing Factors
Decision Tree Interpretation
Read the tree together with its plain-language insights.
Evidence Tables
Show readiness review, indicator metrics, rule reference, and diagnostics.
Optional detail
Evidence Tables
Show readiness review, indicator metrics, rule reference, and diagnostics.
Model Readiness Review
| 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
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
| 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 |