Citizen segment evidence
AvailableThe clustering result identifies citizen segments and shows whether any segment has lower awareness, lower availment, lower satisfaction, or higher need for action.
Classification evidence
24 indicator modelsThe decision-tree classification uses citizen segment membership and profile variables as predictors. Most current indicator results are grouped as needs more predictors, which guides how strongly the result may be interpreted.
Association-rule evidence
Lift 1.09The strongest repeated service-stage pattern is: Respondents who were aware of the social_welfare, and availed the social_welfare had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social_welfare (Lift: 1.09). This pattern was observed together 96.7% of the time for the eligible records.
For Social Welfare Services, the harmonized evidence identifies this service-stage concern: Need for Action in Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program (60.7%). The recurring factor to check is MCA Dim1 (MCA profile dimension) appears in 17 model(s) across 4 stage(s). The repeated service-stage pattern is Satisfaction pattern: 96.7% confidence, lift 1.09. Together, these findings show whether the service-stage, citizen-segment, classification, and association-rule evidence point toward the same analytical interpretation.
Evidence agreement: strong consensus. The findings should be checked against local service records and field context before they are used for planning. Proposed actions, responsible offices, and monitoring indicators are presented separately in the Decision Support module.
This page harmonizes descriptive, clustering, classification, statistical, and association evidence for examination and validation. Proposed LGU actions are presented separately in the Decision Support module.
Consensus Feature Analysis
4 sources
Evidence Source Agreement
Consensus evidence checks whether different analytical outputs point toward the same interpretation. It helps avoid relying on only one model or one metric.
| Evidence Source | Main Signal | Interpretive Value | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Descriptive service-stage review | Need for Action in Older Persons / Senior Citizens Program (60.7%). | Identifies the service-stage issue that should be checked first. | Available |
| Chi-square / statistical support | Sex shows strong relationship by Chi-square (effect 0.543, p=<0.001). | Shows which profile variable meaningfully separates citizen segments before planning targeted action. | Available |
| Decision Tree recurring variable | MCA Dim1 appears across 17 model(s) and 4 stage(s). | Identifies a repeated predictor that can guide validation and targeting. | Available |
| Association rule mining | Satisfaction pattern with 96.7% confidence and lift 1.09. | Shows which service-stage responses repeatedly appear together and should be validated. | Available |
Social Welfare Services has converging evidence from descriptive review, statistical support, classification, and association rules. The combined result supports a strong integrated analytical interpretation.
Recurring Predictor Evidence
15 variables
Recurring Variables Across Models
This review counts which predictors repeatedly appear with positive importance across the saved indicator-level Decision Tree models. It helps identify citizen characteristics that consistently support interpretation across service-stage outcomes.
| Recurring Variable | Evidence Group | Model Coverage | Stage Coverage | Analytical Interpretation | Evidence Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCA Dim1 | MCA profile dimension | 17 models Appears in 17 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This is a combined profile signal from MCA. It should be read as a summary of related respondent characteristics, not as one survey question. | Review the underlying profile traits behind this MCA signal before translating it into a specific program action. |
| MCA DimMagnitude | MCA profile dimension | 17 models Appears in 17 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This is a combined profile signal from MCA. It should be read as a summary of related respondent characteristics, not as one survey question. | Review the underlying profile traits behind this MCA signal before translating it into a specific program action. |
| MCA Dim2 | MCA profile dimension | 16 models Appears in 16 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This is a combined profile signal from MCA. It should be read as a summary of related respondent characteristics, not as one survey question. | Review the underlying profile traits behind this MCA signal before translating it into a specific program action. |
| Highest Educational Attainment | Socio-demographic profile | 15 models Appears in 15 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This respondent profile characteristic may help explain differences in awareness, service use, satisfaction, or need for action. | Use the profile characteristic to refine target groups for information campaigns, eligibility review, or monitoring. |
| Age Group | Socio-demographic profile | 12 models Appears in 12 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This respondent profile characteristic may help explain differences in awareness, service use, satisfaction, or need for action. | Use the profile characteristic to refine target groups for information campaigns, eligibility review, or monitoring. |
| Source of Information | Housing and living conditions | 12 models Appears in 12 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | Household conditions or information access may be linked with how citizens know about and use LGU services. | Check whether household access conditions affect service reach, communication channels, or ability to avail services. |
| Source of Drinking Water | Housing and living conditions | 11 models Appears in 11 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | Household conditions or information access may be linked with how citizens know about and use LGU services. | Check whether household access conditions affect service reach, communication channels, or ability to avail services. |
| Employment Status | Socio-demographic profile | 10 models Appears in 10 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This respondent profile characteristic may help explain differences in awareness, service use, satisfaction, or need for action. | Use the profile characteristic to refine target groups for information campaigns, eligibility review, or monitoring. |
| 4Ps Beneficiary | Housing and living conditions | 9 models Appears in 9 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | Household conditions or information access may be linked with how citizens know about and use LGU services. | Check whether household access conditions affect service reach, communication channels, or ability to avail services. |
| Relationship to HH Head | Socio-demographic profile | 9 models Appears in 9 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 3 stages Covers 3 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction. | This respondent profile characteristic may help explain differences in awareness, service use, satisfaction, or need for action. | Use the profile characteristic to refine target groups for information campaigns, eligibility review, or monitoring. |
| HH Toilet Type | Housing and living conditions | 8 models Appears in 8 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | Household conditions or information access may be linked with how citizens know about and use LGU services. | Check whether household access conditions affect service reach, communication channels, or ability to avail services. |
| House Ownership | Housing and living conditions | 7 models Appears in 7 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 3 stages Covers 3 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Need for Action. | Household conditions or information access may be linked with how citizens know about and use LGU services. | Check whether household access conditions affect service reach, communication channels, or ability to avail services. |
| Place of Work | Socio-demographic profile | 6 models Appears in 6 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 4 stages Covers 4 CSIS stage(s): Awareness, Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This respondent profile characteristic may help explain differences in awareness, service use, satisfaction, or need for action. | Use the profile characteristic to refine target groups for information campaigns, eligibility review, or monitoring. |
| MCA DimQuadrant Low Dim1 / High Dim2 | MCA profile dimension | 4 models Appears in 4 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 3 stages Covers 3 CSIS stage(s): Availment, Satisfaction, Need for Action. | This is a combined profile signal from MCA. It should be read as a summary of related respondent characteristics, not as one survey question. | Review the underlying profile traits behind this MCA signal before translating it into a specific program action. |
| Civil Status | Socio-demographic profile | 4 models Appears in 4 indicator-level Decision Tree model(s). | 2 stages Covers 2 CSIS stage(s): Availment, Satisfaction. | This respondent profile characteristic may help explain differences in awareness, service use, satisfaction, or need for action. | Use the profile characteristic to refine target groups for information campaigns, eligibility review, or monitoring. |
A recurring predictor is decision-support evidence, not proof of causation. Use it together with the indicator-level metrics, decision-tree example, clustering results, and service delivery review.
Association-Rule Evidence
6 rules
Repeated Service-Stage Patterns
Association-rule evidence shows which CSIS service-stage responses commonly appear together. Use these repeated patterns to decide which service-stage link needs validation by the LGU.
| Rule | Result Area | Repeated Pattern | Support | Confidence | Lift | Meaning | Interpretive Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 1 | Satisfaction | Citizens who were aware of the social welfare services, and availed the social welfare services had a 97% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social welfare services (Lift: 1.09). | 27.1% seen in eligible records | 96.7% observed together | 1.09 Strong | This rule is about citizen experience after service use. The linked response is observed together 96.7% of the time and appears more often than expected by chance. | Use this pattern to review service quality, frontline experience, and satisfaction drivers for Social Welfare Services. |
| Rule 2 | Satisfaction | Citizens who were aware of the social welfare services, and felt a need for further action, and availed the social welfare services had a 94% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social welfare services (Lift: 1.06). | 12.6% seen in eligible records | 94.3% observed together | 1.06 Strong | This rule is about citizen experience after service use. The linked response is observed together 94.3% of the time and appears more often than expected by chance. | Use this pattern to review service quality, frontline experience, and satisfaction drivers for Social Welfare Services. |
| Rule 3 | Satisfaction | Citizens who availed the social welfare services had a 92% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social welfare services (Lift: 1.04). | 35.6% seen in eligible records | 91.9% observed together | 1.04 Strong | This rule is about citizen experience after service use. The linked response is observed together 91.9% of the time and appears close to the ordinary baseline rate. | Use this pattern to review service quality, frontline experience, and satisfaction drivers for Social Welfare Services. |
| Rule 4 | Satisfaction | Citizens who felt a need for further action, and availed the social welfare services had a 89% likelihood of also were satisfied with the social welfare services (Lift: 1.00). | 16.3% seen in eligible records | 89.0% observed together | 1.00 Strong | This rule is about citizen experience after service use. The linked response is observed together 89.0% of the time and appears close to the ordinary baseline rate. | Use this pattern to review service quality, frontline experience, and satisfaction drivers for Social Welfare Services. |
| Rule 5 | Awareness | Citizens who availed the social welfare services had a 70% likelihood of also were aware of the social welfare services, and were satisfied with the social welfare services (Lift: 0.97). | 27.1% seen in eligible records | 69.9% observed together | 0.97 Weak | This rule is about awareness and information reach. The linked response is observed together 69.9% of the time and appears close to the ordinary baseline rate. | Use this pattern to validate where Social Welfare Services information campaigns or barangay communication may need strengthening. |
| Rule 6 | Awareness | Citizens who felt a need for further action, and availed the social welfare services had a 69% likelihood of also were aware of the social welfare services, and were satisfied with the social welfare services (Lift: 0.95). | 12.6% seen in eligible records | 68.6% observed together | 0.95 Weak | This rule is about awareness and information reach. The linked response is observed together 68.6% of the time and appears weaker than the ordinary baseline rate. | Use this pattern to validate where Social Welfare Services information campaigns or barangay communication may need strengthening. |
Association rules show co-occurrence, not causation. A high-confidence rule should still be checked against service records, citizen feedback, and field context before implementation.
- Service-stage review: View descriptive service-stage results
- Citizen Segments: View segment profile and statistical support
- Classification: View predictor and model readiness evidence
- Association Rules: View repeated service-stage patterns
After examining and validating the harmonized evidence, continue to the Decision Support module to review planning-oriented recommendations and their traceability paths.
Open Decision Support