COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques

COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932" }, "headline": "COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques", "datePublished": "2021-09-16T13:53:23", "dateModified": "2021-11-12T12:45:49", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rathimala Kannan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ivan Zhi Wei Wang" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hway Boon Ong" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kannan Ramakrishnan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Andry Alamsyah" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background: The Malaysian government reacted to the pandemic’s economic effect with the Prihatin Rakyat Economic Stimulus Package (ESP) to cushion the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) impact on households. The ESP consists of cash assistance, utility discount, moratorium, Employee Provident Fund (EPF) cash withdrawals, credit guarantee scheme and wage subsidies. A survey carried out by the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) shows that households prefer different types of financial assistance. These preferences forge the need to effectively customise ESPs to manage the economic burden among low-income households. In this study, a recommender system for such ESPs was designed by leveraging data analytics and machine learning techniques. Methods: This study used a dataset from DOSM titled “Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2,” collected from April 10 to April 24, 2020. Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining was followed to develop machine learning models to classify ESP receivers according to their preferred subsidies types. Four machine learning techniques—Decision Tree, Gradient Boosted Tree, Random Forest and Naïve Bayes—were used to build the predictive models for each moratorium, utility discount and EPF and Private Remuneration Scheme (PRS) cash withdrawals subsidies. The best predictive model was selected based on F-score metrics. Results: Among the four machine learning techniques, Gradient Boosted Tree outperformed the rest. This technique predicted the following: moratorium preferences with 93.8% sensitivity, 82.1% precision and 87.6% F-score; utilities discount with 86% sensitivity, 82.1% precision and 84% F-score; and EPF and PRS with 83.6% sensitivity, 81.2% precision and 82.4% F-score. Households that prefer moratorium subsidies did not favour other financial aids except for cash assistance. Conclusion: Findings present machine learning models that can predict individual household preferences from ESP. These models can be used to design customised ESPs that can effectively manage the financial burden of low-income households." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932", "name": "COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender..." } } ] } Home Browse COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Kannan R, Wang IZW, Ong HB et al. COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Rathimala Kannan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2583-6982 1 , Ivan Zhi Wei Wang 2 , Hway Boon Ong 3 , Kannan Ramakrishnan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5314-7327 4 , Andry Alamsyah https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5106-7561 5 Rathimala Kannan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2583-6982 1 , Ivan Zhi Wei Wang 2 , [...] Hway Boon Ong 3 , Kannan Ramakrishnan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5314-7327 4 , Andry Alamsyah https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5106-7561 5 PUBLISHED 12 Nov 2021 Author details Author details 1 Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 2 Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 3 Department of Economics, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 4 Faculty of Computing and Informatics, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 5 School of Economics and Business, Telkom University, Bandung, West Java, 40257, Indonesia Rathimala Kannan Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Ivan Zhi Wei Wang Roles: Data Curation Hway Boon Ong Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Kannan Ramakrishnan Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Andry Alamsyah Roles: Validation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning gateway. This article is included in the Research Synergy Foundation gateway. Abstract Background : The Malaysian government reacted to the pandemic’s economic effect with the Prihatin Rakyat Economic Stimulus Package (ESP) to cushion the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) impact on households. The ESP consists of cash assistance, utility discount, moratorium, Employee Provident Fund (EPF) cash withdrawals, credit guarantee scheme and wage subsidies. A survey carried out by the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) shows that households prefer different types of financial assistance. These preferences forge the need to effectively customise ESPs to manage the economic burden among low-income households. In this study, a recommender system for such ESPs was designed by leveraging data analytics and machine learning techniques. Methods : This study used a dataset from DOSM titled “Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2,” collected from April 10 to April 24, 2020. Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining was followed to develop machine learning models to classify ESP receivers according to their preferred subsidies types. Four machine learning techniques—Decision Tree, Gradient Boosted Tree, Random Forest and Naïve Bayes—were used to build the predictive models for each moratorium, utility discount and EPF and Private Remuneration Scheme (PRS) cash withdrawals subsidies. The best predictive model was selected based on F-score metrics. Results : Among the four machine learning techniques, Gradient Boosted Tree outperformed the rest. This technique predicted the following: moratorium preferences with 93.8% sensitivity, 82.1% precision and 87.6% F-score; utilities discount with 86% sensitivity, 82.1% precision and 84% F-score; and EPF and PRS with 83.6% sensitivity, 81.2% precision and 82.4% F-score. Households that prefer moratorium subsidies did not favour other financial aids except for cash assistance. Conclusion : Findings present machine learning models that can predict individual household preferences from ESP. These models can be used to design customised ESPs that can effectively manage the financial burden of low-income households. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords COVID-19, low-income households, economic stimulus package, customisation, data analytics, machine learning, Gradient Boosted Tree Corresponding Author(s) Rathimala Kannan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Rathimala Kannan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was partly supported by Multimedia University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2021 Kannan R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Kannan R, Wang IZW, Ong HB et al. COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.2 ) First published: 16 Sep 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.1 ) Latest published: 12 Nov 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The term "How" was added to the research questions. The methodology section has been enhanced to include different of machine learning approaches. A new flowchart (new Figure 2) of the modelling and evaluation process has been introduced, which demonstrates how a supervised machine learning model is constructed, as well as parameter tuning to achieve optimised models. To select the optimal model, k-fold cross validation was used, which revealed no differences when the data was separated into training and testing datasets. The discussion section has been updated to address each research questions individually, providing additional detail on the findings and their implications. The trade-off between prediction accuracy and interpretability of a model in machine learning approach is explained. The part on limitations has been explained in detail. The term "How" was added to the research questions. The methodology section has been enhanced to include different of machine learning approaches. A new flowchart (new Figure 2) of the modelling and evaluation process has been introduced, which demonstrates how a supervised machine learning model is constructed, as well as parameter tuning to achieve optimised models. To select the optimal model, k-fold cross validation was used, which revealed no differences when the data was separated into training and testing datasets. The discussion section has been updated to address each research questions individually, providing additional detail on the findings and their implications. The trade-off between prediction accuracy and interpretability of a model in machine learning approach is explained. The part on limitations has been explained in detail. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Setia Pramana See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sreeja N.K See the authors' detailed response to the review by Shahrinaz Ismail READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created devastation in people’s lives worldwide, both socially and economically ( Shah et al. , 2020 ). As a result, governments have adopted various strategies aimed at reducing the pandemic’s impact, particularly the financial strain. The Malaysian government has introduced a series of economic stimulus packages to support various segments of its citizens. One such support is the Prihatin Rakyat Economic Stimulus Package (ESP) to cushion the impact of COVID-19 on low-income households after the first movement control in the country. The ESP consists of cash assistance, utility discount, moratorium, Employee Provident Fund and Private Remuneration Scheme (EPF and PRS) cash withdrawals and Credit Guarantee Scheme and Wage subsidies ( Flanders et al. , 2020 ). Following the implementation of ESP, the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) carried out a special survey from April 10 to April 24,2020 to better understand the implications of COVID-19 on the economy and households. The study included questions on social and economic factors and subsidy preferences. A typical low-income household often bears considerable debt and has limited savings. When movement control was implemented, households that lost their income sources faced difficulties in accessing necessities, such as food and housing ( Flanders et al. , 2020 ). Even though the government offered ESP to help residents cope financially, the demands and desires of citizens in the event of a pandemic are unknown. For example, several households are reluctant to withdraw from EPF and PRS due to its reduction on their savings for old age. A personalised ESP can be built to reduce residents’ financial burden in this crisis if we can foresee their requirements and preferences for various subsidies, such as cash allowance, utility discount, moratorium or EPF and PRS withdrawals. Using data analytics and machine learning approaches, this study attempted to analyse survey data and construct predictive models for customised economic stimulus packages. The following research questions were put forward. 1. How can households that favour moratorium subsidies be identified? 2. How to find out which households seek utility discount subsidies? 3. How can households who desire EPF and PRS withdrawal subsidies be identified? This study contributes to the literature by using four machine learning techniques on socioeconomic survey data and predicting household subsidy preferences. A comparison of the feature selection methods, such as Gini index, Gain–Ratio and various partitioning ratios of the training and test data sets were carried out. The outcomes of this study can help the government deliver better and improved stimulus packages in the future based on individual preferences. Methods For planning and execution, this study used the Cross-Industry Standard Process-Data Mining (CRISP-DM), which is the industry-independent de-facto standard for implementing data mining initiatives ( Schröer et al. , 2021 ). This process has six phases, namely, business understanding, data understanding, data preparation, modelling, evaluation and deployment. Figure 1 depicts the activities carried out in each phase, as further explained below. Figure 1. Research methods. Business understanding This phase identifies the problems to solve using the machine learning perspective and approach. All three research questions were selected as the problems, and the purpose was to propose predictive models for the moratorium, utility discount and EPF and PRS subsidies in the Prihatin Rakyat ESPs. Data understanding Data gathering, evaluating, characterising and assuring its quality are part of this phase. DOSM performed a special survey (Round 2) to investigate the consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic on household economics and status ( “Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal,” 2020 ; Malaysia, 2020 ). The dataset includes 36 questions and 41,386 respondents. However, the data obtained from DOSM were not complete due to missing questions. The missing questions were Q3, Q6, Q19, and Q27 – Q31. In terms of the total respondents, the data were complete and had a total of 41,386 participants, all of them were aged 15 and older. 96.8% of the respondents have received benefits from Prihatin Rakyat ESPs. The raw data were based on responses from respondents, which included qualitative personal opinions on economy, employment, lifestyle, and education. The original dataset was in Malay language, and is translated into English for this study and given below as Table 1 . Table 1. Survey questions. 1. Joined and answered Survey Round 1 (Yes, No) 2. State (KL, Johor, Selangor, Perak, Sarawak, Kedah, Pahang, Putrajaya, Perlis, Kelantan, Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Labuan, Terengganu, Negeri Sembilan, Sabah) 3. 4. Gender (Female, Male) 5. Stay in (City, Rural) 6. 7. Age group (15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65 and above) 8. Marital status 9. (Single/Non-married, Married, Single mother, Widow/Widower, Divorced/Separated) 10. Number of dependents (including respondents) (1–2, 3–4, 5–10, More than 10 people) 11. Ethnic groups (Malay, Indian, Native Sabah/Sarawak, Chinese, Others, Foreigner) 12. Benefit from the PRIHATIN Economic Stimulus Package (ESP)? (Yes, No) 13. The most advantageous form of assistance received under the PRIHATIN Economic Stimulus Package? a. Cash assistance (National Prihatian assistance, IPT student assistance, E-hailing) (Yes, No) b. Utilities discount (Yes, No) c. Moratorium (Yes, No) d. EPF cash withdrawals & Private remuneration scheme (Yes, No) e. Credit guarantee scheme (Yes, No) f. Wage subsidies and payments under ERP program (Yes, No) g. NA (Yes, No) 13. Process/procedure achievement level for PRIHATIN assistance (Easy, Difficult, Medium, NA, Others) 14. Satisfied with the help of PRIHATIN (Yes, No, NA) 15. Status of eligibility as a recipient of PRIHATIN aid (Eligible, New application, Appeal, Not eligible) 16. Ranking according to your preferences with the situation facing now [Health & lives] (1,2,3) a. Ranking according to your preferences with the current situation [Income (employment/ business/enterprise)] (1,2,3) b. Ranking according to your preferences with the situation faced now [Life goes back as normal] (1,2,3) 17. The impact of the PRIHATIN Economic Stimulus Package (Effective, Most effective, Others, NA, No effects) 18. With the extension of the Movement Control Order (MCO) until 28 April 2020, does it still require assistance/ the PRIHATIN Economic Stimulus Package for the next phase? (Yes, No) 19. 20. Views on health workers (frontlines) and health facilities provided by the government in dealing with COVID-19 (Good, Bad) 21. Views on achievements and facilities provided in dealing with COVID-19 in Malaysia compared to other countries. (Good, Bad) 22. COVID-19 outbreak affects lifestyle (Yes, No) 23. Ready to have a new normal lifestyle (i.e. a new normal life will differ from normal life before the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak) (Yes, No) 24. If ready, lifestyle changes will be done a. Number of lifestyle changes to be done (Yes, No) b. Will not eat out (Yes, No) c. Limiting social activities (Yes, No) d. Limiting sports and recreational activities (Yes, No) e. Limited religious and spiritual activity at home (Yes, No) f. Limiting tourism activities (Yes, No) g. Improves hygiene (Yes, No) h. Others (Yes, No) i. NA (Yes, No) 25. Working during the MCO period (Work from home, Not working, Rotation - partial payment, Full paid leave, Rotation - full payment, Semi-salary leave, Retrenched) 26. Work as (Government servants, Private sector employees, Not working, Self-employed, GLC employees, MNC employees, employers, Unpaid family workers) 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Main expenses on food products during MCO (Yes, No) a. Number of major food products expenditure during MCO b. Dry food items (e.g. bihun, biscuits, nestum, etc.) c. Cooked food (takeaway/delivery) d. Instant noodles e. Eggs f. Fish/chicken/meat/seafood for cooking g. Vegetables h. Fruits i. Frozen food (e.g. sausages, nuggets, fish balls, french fries, etc.) j. Rice k. Spaghetti l. Bread m. Baby food n. Animal food o. Cooking oil p. Essential items for cooking (example: shallots, garlic, sugar, salt, etc.) q. Canned beverages (examples: milo, condensed milk, powdered milk, etc.) r. Flour (including wheat flour, Rice flour, glutinous flour, etc.) s. 3-in-1 Drinks t. Vitamins/Supplements u. Drinking water v. Othersr 33. Main expenses for non-food products during MCO (Yes, No) a. Number of main expenses on non-food during MCO b. Hand wash c. Tissuepaper d. Disinfectant e. Face mask f. Baby diaper g. Wet tissue h. Sanitary pad i. Laundry soap j. Toiletries k. Thermometer i. Medications (e.g. fever medicine, flu medicine, cough medicine, etc.) m. First aid kit n. Gloves (various sizes) o. Others 34. Internet access level for yourself / your child's online learning (NA, Slow, Fast, Average, No Internet access) 35. Average hours per day of yourself/child online learning during the MCO period (NA, 8) 36. Accessibility of faster Internet speed during online learning (NA, Morning, Night, Afternoon) Data preparation There were 28 questions available for further analysis in this study, eliminating the missing ones. Question 32 and 33 were excluded from the survey because they focused on the primary food and non-food products purchased during the time of movement control orders. Given that the dataset was cluttered with missing values and errors, a considerable effort was spent on its cleaning before applying descriptive analytics techniques. Q34, Q35 and Q36 had missing values of 2071, 2243 and 2310 respectively and were replaced by the most frequent values. By cleaning the data, the raw data is transformed into structured data. Without losing any information, all lengthy responses were reduced to short and detailed responses. If the original answer for respondent’s dwelling state was "Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur," it was converted to "KL." Questions with answers were labelled "Yes," whereas those without answers are labelled "No." One question, for example, inquired about respondents' willingness to eat out as part of the new norm's lifestyle adjustments. Those who agreed said they "will not eat out." Those who opposed to the shift in lifestyle left the question unanswered. As a result, these questions were changed to a "Yes" or "No" format. Modelling This phase employed a variety of machine learning techniques in order to achieve the study's goal of developing classification models. Different approaches, such as information-based learning, similarity-based learning, error-based learning, and probability-based learning, can be used to create classifiers ( Kelleher et al. , 2015 ). This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic. To create prediction models, we used four machine learning techniques: Decision Tree, Random Forest, Gradient Boosted Tree and Naïve Bayes. These four machine learning techniques were chosen from a literature review ( Mostafa et al. , 2021 ; Sangavi et al. , 2020 ) and used to determine the optimal model by tuning their parameters. Feature selection methods, such as Gini index, Gain–Ratio and various partitioning ratios of the training and test data sets were also compared ( Trivedi, 2020 ). Figure 2 depicts parameter tuning carried out in the modelling phase. Figure 2. Flowchart for modelling and evolution process. Evaluation In this phase, the best predictive model for each subsidy was selected based on the standard performance evaluation metrics: Sensitivity, Precision, F-Score and Accuracy ( Moscato et al. , 2021 ). The formulas used to calculate each of the metrics are given below. A c c u r a c y = T P + T N T P + T N + F P + F N TP = True Positive, TN = True Negative, FP = False Positive, FN = False Negative The completeness of a prediction model was measured by sensitivity, also known as recall and true positive rate (TPR). This metric determined the proportion of positive predictions by a model that corresponds to true positive values ( Moscato et al. , 2021 ). The formula is given below. S e n s i t i v i t y = T P T P + F N Precision in data analytics refers to a model’s ability to correctly forecast outcomes. In other words, precision is a true positive divided by a combination of true and false positives. P r e c i s i o n = T P T P + F P F-Score, also known as F1 Score, is a balance of both precision and sensitivity. Hence, this study used F-Score to evaluate the machine learning models. F S c o r e = 2 × P r e c i s i o n × S e n s i t i v i t y P r e c i s i o n + S e n s i t i v i t y Deployment In the final phase a deployment strategy for the model was created and documented. The best predictive model as determined for each of the subsidies was to be recommended for further deployment. The entire CRISP-DM phases were carried out using the Konstanz Information Miner (KNIME 4.3.2), a free and open-source data analytics software. Ethical approval This study was carried out from November 23, 2020 to October 06, 2021 and has obtained ethics approval (EA1322021) by Technology Transfer Office, secretariat of research ethics committee, Multimedia university. Results The outcomes of this study were organised as descriptive analytics, model optimisation and findings. Descriptive analytics helps to understand the characteristics of each respondent and the relationship between variables. Table 2 provides the descriptive information on the respondents. Table 2. Descriptive statistics of respondent demographics. State Age Group Selangor Johor Sabah KL Perak Kedah Pahang Melaka Sarawak Negeri Sembilan Kelantan Pulau Pinang Terengganu Putrajaya Perlis Labuan 27.74% 12.35% 8.41% 7.84% 6.29% 4.96% 4.87% 4.83% 4.52% 4.38% 3.30% 3.23% 3.02% 2.94% 0.83% 0.50% 35–44 25–34 45–54 15–24 55–64 65 and above 38.87% 29.19% 19.38% 6.6% 5.46% 0.50% Marital Status Married Single/ Non-Married Divorced/ Separated Single mother Widow/ Widower 70.95% 24.35% 1.98% 1.42% 1.28% Location City Rural 70.71% 29.28% Gender Number of dependents including self Female Male 55.7% 44.3% 3–4 5–10 1–2 More than 10 people 36.21% 35.2% 28.1% 0.47% Ethnic Group Job status Malay Native Sabah/ Sarawak Chinese Indian Others Foreigner 79.61% 10.29% 7.18% 1.75 1.07 0.1% Government Servants Private Sector Employees Not Working GLC Employees Self-Employed Employers MNC Employees Unpaid family workers 39.22% 27.14% 21.61% 4.35% 3.05% 2.18% 2.12% 0.32% Figure 3 shows the various types of subsidies offered in the ESP. Among the 41,386 respondents, 72.2% were eligible to receive subsidies, 21.9% were newly applied, 3.2% were not eligible and 2.7% had appealed. Figure 3 also shows the most beneficial forms of support. The most popular type of subsidy was cash allowance, followed by moratorium, utility discounts and EPF and PRS cash withdrawals. The least preferred type was the credit guarantee plan and wage subsidies. Figure 3. Most beneficial forms of assistance received under the Prihatin Rakyat ESP. Following the descriptive analytics, the four machine learning techniques were applied to develop prediction models for each moratorium, utility discount and EPF withdrawals subsidies. Decision Tree, Gradient Boosted Tree, Random Forest and Naïve Bayes are subjected to parameter tuning to determine the best model and parameter values. Table 3 to Table 6 show how the optimal model was obtained from each machine learning technique. Partitioning ratio indicates the training and test data. Gain ratio, Gini index and information gain were used to measure the quality of each predictor in classifying the target variable. The results show that the Gradient Boosted Tree and Naïve Bayes techniques performed well when 60% of the data were used to train the machine learning models and the other 40% was used for testing. Random Forest and Decision Tree techniques generated the best models when the training data were 80% and the test data were 20%. F-Score was used as the evaluation measure to select the optimal models. After identifying the optimal models, the best was selected among the four machine learning techniques. Table 7 shows the results. Gradient Boosted Tree outperformed the rest of the techniques in predicting the moratorium preference with 93.8% sensitivity, 82.1% precision and 87.6% F-score. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in classifier performance, and the Gradient boosting tree still performs the best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion ( Marcot & Hanea, 2021 ) Table 3. Gradient Boosted Tree - Parameter tuning and identification of optimal model. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Gradient Boosted Tree 50:50 No 0.877 0.71 0.784 0.838 Yes 0.819 0.929 0.871 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 70:30 No 0.883 0.717 0.791 0.843 Yes 0.823 0.933 0.874 80:20 No 0.881 0.701 0.781 0.837 Yes 0.815 0.933 0.87 Table 4. Naïve Bayes - Parameter tuning and identification of optimal model. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Naïve Bayes 50:50 No 0.627 0.449 0.524 0.661 Yes 0.675 0.811 0.737 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 70:30 No 0.633 0.449 0.526 0.663 Yes 0.676 0.815 0.739 80:20 No 0.624 0.443 0.518 0.658 Yes 0.673 0.811 0.735 Table 5. Decision Tree - Parameter tuning and identification of optimal model. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 50:50 (Gini Index) No 0.776 0.705 0.739 0.793 Yes 0.804 0.856 0.829 50:50 (Gain Ratio) No 0.745 0.685 0.731 0.772 Yes 0.789 0.834 0.811 60:40 (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.855 0.826 60:40 (Gain Ratio) No 0.746 0.669 0.705 0.768 Yes 0.781 0.839 0.809 70:30 (Gini Index) No 0.766 0.7 0.731 0.787 Yes 0.8 0.848 0.823 70:30 (Gain Ratio) No 0.75 0.685 0.716 0.775 Yes 0.79 0.838 0.813 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 80:20 (Gain Ratio) No 0.743 0.697 0.719 0.774 Yes 0.794 0.83 0.812 Table 6. Random Forest - Parameter tuning and identification of optimal model. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Random Forest 50:50 (Information Gain) No 0.809 0.766 0.787 0.828 Yes 0.84 0.872 0.856 50:50 (Gain Ratio) No 0.805 0.744 0.773 0.819 Yes 0.828 0.872 0.849 50:50 (Gini Index) No 0.804 0.763 0.783 0.825 Yes 0.838 0.868 0.853 60:40 (Information Gain) No 0.809 0.752 0.779 0.823 Yes 0.833 0.874 0.853 60:40 (Gain Ratio) No 0.804 0.739 0.77 0.817 Yes 0.825 0.873 0.848 60:40 (Gini Index) No 0.803 0.759 0.78 0.823 Yes 0.836 0.868 0.852 70:30 (Information Gain) No 0.808 0.774 0.791 0.83 Yes 0.845 0.87 0.857 70:30 (Gain Ratio) No 0.821 0.753 0.786 0.83 Yes 0.835 0.884 0.859 70:30 (Gini Index) No 0.815 0.765 0.789 0.831 Yes 0.84 0.877 0.858 80:20 (Information Gain) No 0.813 0.759 0.785 0.827 Yes 0.837 0.876 0.856 80:20 (Gain Ratio) No 0.825 0.752 0.787 0.831 Yes 0.835 0.887 0.86 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 Table 7. Evaluation of predictive models: moratorium. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20(Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 Random Forest 80:20(Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 A similar process was carried out to develop machine learning models for utility discounts and EPF and PRS subsidies. The results show that for both subsidies, Gradient Boosted Tree was identified as the best machine learning technique. Table 8 and Table 9 show that this technique can predict utility discount with 86% sensitivity, 82.1% precision and 84% F-score, as well as EPF and PRS with 83.6% sensitivity, 81.2% precision and 82.4% F-score, respectively. Table 8. Evaluation of predictive models: utilities discount. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Utilities Discount Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.849 0.835 0.842 0.83 Yes 0.809 0.824 0.816 Gradient Boosted Tree 80:20 No 0.876 0.841 0.859 0.85 Yes 0.821 0.86 0.84 Random Forest 80:20 (Information Gain Ratio) No 0.848 0.864 0.856 0.843 Yes 0.836 0.817 0.827 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.643 0.623 0.633 0.609 Yes 0.571 0.592 0.581 Table 9. Evaluation of predictive models: EPF and PRS withdrawals. Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: EPF & PRS Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.882 0.854 0.868 0.844 Yes 0.791 0.828 0.809 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.889 0.871 0.88 0.857 Yes 0.812 0.836 0.824 Random Forest 60:40 (Information Gain Ratio) No 0.87 0.892 0.881 0.855 Yes 0.831 0.799 0.815 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.699 0.781 0.738 0.666 Yes 0.599 0.494 0.541 Discussion 1. How can households that favour moratorium subsidies be identified? To answer this research question, four classification models have been built using decision tree, gradient boosted tree, random forest and naïve bayes machine learning techniques. The optimal model from each of these techniques are determined by tuning their parameters and the details of parameter values are explained in the previous section. Finally, the best model from each of the four machine learning algorithms is compared, and the best model is chosen using the F-score performance evaluation measure. When the data division ratio is 60 percent training data and 40 percent testing data, Gradient Boosted Tree was shown to be the best machine learning model for predicting moratorium subsidies preferred households, with F-score =0.876 and sensitivity = 0.938. Hence this model is recommended for the deployment phase. Although the gradient boosting tree can more accurately identify households that favour moratorium subsidies, it is difficult to interpret. It's because the relationship between each predictor and the target is modelled using a curve, making it difficult to explain how each predictor relates to the target. Machine learning techniques are always a trade-off between prediction accuracy and interpretability. In general, a method's interpretability reduces as its accuracy improves. ( Hastie et al. , 2021 ). Therefore, the decision tree model is utilised to create the ruleset in order to determine the general profile of families who favour a moratorium subsidy. Rule support refers to the number of respondents to whom this condition applies. Rule confidence indicates the probability of having a moratorium as the preferred subsidy. Table 10 shows the basic characteristics of families that choose moratorium subsidies with a rule support of 400 and above. Table 10. General profiles for moratorium subsidy preference. Condition Rule Support Rule Confidence $Q12: Cash Assistance$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q12: Utilities Discount$ IN ("No") AND $Q12: EPF & PRS$ IN ("No") AND $Q12: Wage Sub$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q12: CGS$ IN ("No") AND $Q10: Race$ IN ("Malay", "Native Sabah/Sarawak", "Others") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ", "55-64 ") 902 95.68% $Q22: Outbreak lifestyle changes?$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q4: Gender$ IN ("Male") AND $Q34: Internet access lvl$ IN ("NA", "Fast") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ") AND $Q5: Area$ IN ("City") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ") AND $Q8: Marital Status$ IN ("Married") AND $Q12: Wage Sub$ IN ("No") AND $Q12: CGS$ IN ("No") AND $Q10: Race$ IN ("Malay", "Native Sabah/Sarawak", "Others") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ", "55-64 ") 792 88.51% $Q23: Readiness of lifestyle changes$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q12: EPF & PRS$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q12: Utilities Discount$ IN ("No") AND $Q22: Outbreak lifestyle changes?$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q2: State$ IN ("Selangor", "Perak", "Sarawak", "Kedah", "KL", "Johor", "Perlis", "Putrajaya", "Pahang", "Melaka", "Pulau Pinang", "Terengganu", "Negeri Sembilan", "Sabah", "Labuan") AND $Q4: Gender$ IN ("Male") AND $Q18: Future ESP?$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q12: Cash Assistance$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q5: Area$ IN ("Rural") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ") AND $Q8: Marital Status$ IN ("Married") AND $Q12: Wage Sub$ IN ("No") AND $Q12: CGS$ IN ("No") AND $Q10: Race$ IN ("Malay", "Native Sabah/Sarawak", "Others") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ", "55-64 ") 466 93.13% $Q12: EPF & PRS$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q12: Utilities Discount$ IN ("No") AND $Q12: Cash Assistance$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q34: Internet access lvl$ IN ("NA", "Slow", "Average", "No Internet Access") AND $Q22: Outbreak lifestyle changes?$ IN ("Yes") AND $Q4: Gender$ IN ("Female") AND $Q2: State$ IN ("Selangor", "Kedah", "KL", "Johor", "Perlis", "Putrajaya", "Pulau Pinang", "Negeri Sembilan", "Sabah") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("25-34 ", "45-54 ", "15-24 ", "55-64 ", "65 and above") AND $Q5: Area$ IN ("City") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ") AND $Q8: Marital Status$ IN ("Married") AND $Q12: Wage Sub$ IN ("No") AND $Q12: CGS$ IN ("No") AND $Q10: Race$ IN ("Malay", "Native Sabah/Sarawak", "Others") AND $Q7: Age Group$ IN ("35-44 ", "25-34 ", "45-54 ", "55-64 ") 447 90.16% The first rule shows that households who prefer to have a cash allowance and their race is either Malay or Native Sabah/Sarawak or others, while those aged between 25 to 64 prefer moratorium. Table 11 explains the first rule indicating the general profile of households who prefer moratorium subsidies. Table 11. General profile of moratorium subsidy preference - rule support: 902 records, rule confidence: 95.7%. Subsidies Race Age Group • Cash Assistance (Yes) • Utilities Discount (No) • EOF & PRS (No) • Wage Subsidies (No) • CGS (No) • Malay • Native Sabah / Sarawak • Others • 35-44 • 25-34 • 45-54 • 55-64 2. How to find out which households seek utility discount subsidies? The four machine learning techniques described in the moratorium subsidies were applied to develop the classification model in order to identify the households who want utility discount subsidies. All of the procedures outlined in the preceding section were followed in order to find the optimal machine learning model. The gradient boosting tree outperforms the other three techniques, with a data partitioning ratio of 80:20, an F-score of 0.84, and a sensitivity of 0.86. Although the gradient boosting tree can more accurately identify households who seek utilities discount subsidies, it is difficult to interpret this model. As a result, decision tree rules were developed in order to comprehend the overall profile of households who seek utility discount subsidies. One such rule is presented in Table 12 . Table 12. General profile of utilities discount subsidy preference - rule support: 1128 records, rule confidence: 90.1%. Readiness of Lifestyle Changes Marital Status States Subsidies Yes • Married • Divorced / Separated • KL • Putrajaya • Melaka • Pulau Penang • Sarawak • Johor • CGS (No) • Cash Assistance (Yes) • Wage Subsidies (No) • Moratorium (Yes) • EPF & PRS (No) 3. How can households who desire EPF and PRS withdrawal subsidies be identified? To identify the households who want EPF and PRS withdrawal subsidies., similar to the moratorium and utilities discount subsidies classification models, decision tree, gradient boosted tree, random forest and naïve bayes techniques were used to develop the machine learning model. With a data partitioning ratio of 60:40 and F-scores of 0.824 and sensitivity of 0.836, the gradient boosting tree was found to be the best model compared to the others. Decision tree rules were developed to explain the general features of households who prefer EPF and PRS withdrawal subsidies, and one of the rules is displayed in Table 13 . Table 13. General profile of EPF & PRS subsidy preference - rule support: 1427 records, rule confidence: 90.5%. ESP in future Marital status Priority Race States Subsides Yes • Single / Non-Married • Married • Widow / Widower • Divorced / Separated Employment • Malay • Native Sabah / Sarawak • Others • Foreigner • KL • Selangor • Johor • Labuan • Sarawak • Negeri Sembilan • CGS (No) • Cash Assistance (Yes) • Wage Subsidies (No) • Moratorium (Yes) • Utilities Discount (No) The results imply that households that prefer moratorium subsidies did not favour other financial aids except cash assistance. By contrast, households that prefer for utility discounts, EPF and PRS withdrawals also chose moratorium subsidies and cash assistance. All households preferred cash assistance, which had the highest score among financial aids, followed by moratorium subsidies. Utility discounts, EPF and PRS withdrawals can be implemented according to the household income group preferences. Wage subsidy and credit guarantee scheme were the least preferred financial assistance. First, the Prihatin wage subsidy is only for eligible Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) subscribers. Hawkers, small businesses and their employees might not subscribe to SOCSO and thus, ineligible to apply for financial aid. Second, the credit guarantee scheme was not preferred due to economic uncertainty from COVID-19. Economic uncertainty adversely affects household income, resulting in their inability to repay the loan instalments. Limitations of the study The following are some of the limitations of this study's findings: The data used are survey responses and cannot be considered to represent the views of all Malaysians. According to DOSM, it should not be used to analyse the impact of COVID-19 in Malaysia and should not be considered official statistics. It can, however, be utilised to assist in the reflection process ( “Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal,” 2020 ; Malaysia, 2020 ). Another limitation is data partitioning method. This study portioned the data into training and test data sets. However, to improve the model, the dataset could be divided into training, validation and test data. This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic. However, it is possible to test with other classification methods, and they might have better accuracy. Conclusions This study used data analytics and machine learning approaches to derive insights from the “Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2” survey dataset. The CRISP-DM approach was applied to develop prediction models for households’ preferred subsidies, such as moratoriums, utility discounts and EPF and PRS using four machine learning algorithms, namely, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Naïve Bayes and Gradient Boosted Tree. For all three subsidies, the best predictive model was obtained by Gradient Boosted Tree. The findings can be used to design customised ESPs that effectively manage the economic burden of low-income households. Data availability Data used in this study were obtained from a survey dataset “Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2,” available from the Department of Statistics, Malaysia (DOSM) . A report published by the DOSM based on the survey can be viewed on the DOSM website. Access to this data requires application, as stated on the DOSM website . A guide for how to apply for dataset access is available on the Data Request page or requests for more information can be emailed to [email protected] . Acknowledgements The authors thank the Department of Statistics Malaysia for allowing us to use “Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2” survey data to carry out this study. The authors also acknowledge Multimedia University for supporting this research. Faculty Opinions recommended References Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal: 2020; Retrieved June 27, 2021. Reference Source Flanders S, Nungsari M, Chuah HY: The COVID-19 Hardship Survey: An Evaluation of the Prihatin Rakyat Economic Stimulus Package. 2020; 1–44. Reference Source Hastie T, Tibshirani R, James G, et al. : An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd Edition). Springer Texts. 2021; 102 : 618. Reference Source Kelleher JD, Namee BM, D’Arcy A, et al. : Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Anayltics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies. (Ist). The MIT Press, 2015. Reference Source Malaysia D of S: Technical Note _Special Survey Covid19_Individuals. 2020. Marcot BG, Hanea AM: What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Comput Stat. 2021; 36 (3): 2009–2031. Publisher Full Text Moscato V, Picariello A, Sperlí G: A benchmark of machine learning approaches for credit score prediction. Expert Syst Appl. 2021; 165 : 113986. Publisher Full Text Mostafa MM, El-Masry AA, Chen Y, et al. : Impact of Classification Algorithms on Census Dataset. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. 2021; 97 (2019): 526–534. Sangavi N, Jeevitha R, Kathirvel P, et al. : Impact of Classification Algorithms on Census Dataset. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. 2020; 8 (5): 2666–2670. Publisher Full Text Schröer C, Kruse F, Gómez JM: A Systematic Literature Review on Applying CRISP-DM Process Model. Procedia Comput Sci. 2021; 181 : 526–534. Publisher Full Text Shah AUM, Safri SNA, Thevadas R, et al. : COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia: Actions taken by the Malaysian government. Int J Infect Dis. 2020; 97 : 108–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Trivedi SK: A study on credit scoring modeling with different feature selection and machine learning approaches. Technology in Society. 2020; 63 : 101413. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Sep 2021 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 2 Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 3 Department of Economics, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 4 Faculty of Computing and Informatics, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, 63100, Malaysia 5 School of Economics and Business, Telkom University, Bandung, West Java, 40257, Indonesia Rathimala Kannan Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Ivan Zhi Wei Wang Roles: Data Curation Hway Boon Ong Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Kannan Ramakrishnan Roles: Writing – Review & Editing Andry Alamsyah Roles: Validation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was partly supported by Multimedia University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 12 Nov 2021, 10:932 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.2 version 1 Published: 16 Sep 2021, 10:932 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.1 Copyright © 2021 Kannan R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Kannan R, Wang IZW, Ong HB et al. COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.72976.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Nov 2021 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Pramana S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100081 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2#referee-response-100081 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 31 May 2024 Setia Pramana , Computational Statistics Department, Politeknik, Statistika STIS, Jakarta, Indonesia; BPS Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100081 The authors have addressed all suggested ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have addressed all suggested comments. I have no further comments to make. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Machine Learning, Data mining, statistics, official statistics, bioinformatics, biostatistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Pramana S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100081 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2#referee-response-100081 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: N.K S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100079 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2#referee-response-100079 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Dec 2021 Sreeja N.K , Department of Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100079 The authors have addressed the issues raised. ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have addressed the issues raised. The authors have reported the average results of cross validation. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Pattern recognition, Supervised Learning, Swarm Intelligence I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT N.K S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100079 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2#referee-response-100079 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 16 Sep 2021 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: N.K S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r97108 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-97108 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Oct 2021 Sreeja N.K , Department of Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r97108 The authors have compared few classifiers on Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2 data set to predict individual household preferences from ESP. I would recommend the authors ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have compared few classifiers on Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2 data set to predict individual household preferences from ESP. I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. The authors can also perform some statistical tests to validate the results obtained from experiments. In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Supervised Learning, Swarm Intelligence I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT N.K S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r97108 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-97108 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan , Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 12 Nov 2021 Author Response I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would ... Continue reading I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. Thank you for your comments. As we are aimed to tune the parameters to get the optimal model from each machine learning techniques, separate tables were provided with the various parameter values. Also the data size was 40k. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in F-score values, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Thank you for spotting this typo error. We have corrected it. I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. Thank you for your comments. As we are aimed to tune the parameters to get the optimal model from each machine learning techniques, separate tables were provided with the various parameter values. Also the data size was 40k. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in F-score values, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Thank you for spotting this typo error. We have corrected it. Competing Interests: No Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan , Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 12 Nov 2021 Author Response I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would ... Continue reading I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. Thank you for your comments. As we are aimed to tune the parameters to get the optimal model from each machine learning techniques, separate tables were provided with the various parameter values. Also the data size was 40k. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in F-score values, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Thank you for spotting this typo error. We have corrected it. I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. Thank you for your comments. As we are aimed to tune the parameters to get the optimal model from each machine learning techniques, separate tables were provided with the various parameter values. Also the data size was 40k. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in F-score values, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Thank you for spotting this typo error. We have corrected it. Competing Interests: No Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ismail S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95431 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-95431 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 15 Oct 2021 Shahrinaz Ismail , Albukhary International University, Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95431 Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need ... Continue reading READ ALL Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Data analytics with knowledge management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ismail S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95431 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-95431 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan , Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 12 Nov 2021 Author Response Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the ... Continue reading Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. We have added brief literature review in the modelling section. Due to the limitation of total words to be within 2500 words, a separate section is not added. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? We employed standard performance indicators to evaluate the classification models. If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. We have revised the discussion section which summarizes the process and the results. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". The research questions are rephrased to start with "how". Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. We have added brief literature review in the modelling section. Due to the limitation of total words to be within 2500 words, a separate section is not added. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? We employed standard performance indicators to evaluate the classification models. If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. We have revised the discussion section which summarizes the process and the results. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". The research questions are rephrased to start with "how". Competing Interests: No Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan , Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 12 Nov 2021 Author Response Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the ... Continue reading Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. We have added brief literature review in the modelling section. Due to the limitation of total words to be within 2500 words, a separate section is not added. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? We employed standard performance indicators to evaluate the classification models. If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. We have revised the discussion section which summarizes the process and the results. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". The research questions are rephrased to start with "how". Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. We have added brief literature review in the modelling section. Due to the limitation of total words to be within 2500 words, a separate section is not added. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? We employed standard performance indicators to evaluate the classification models. If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. We have revised the discussion section which summarizes the process and the results. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". The research questions are rephrased to start with "how". Competing Interests: No Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Pramana S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95430 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-95430 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 06 Oct 2021 Setia Pramana , Computational Statistics Department, Politeknik, Statistika STIS, Jakarta, Indonesia; BPS Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95430 Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. ... Continue reading READ ALL Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Lessmann S, Baesens B, Seow H, Thomas L: Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring: An update of research. European Journal of Operational Research . 2015; 247 (1): 124-136 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Machine Learning, Data mining, statistics, official statistics, bioinformatics, biostatistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Pramana S. Reviewer Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95430 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-95430 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan , Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 12 Nov 2021 Author Response 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on ... Continue reading 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Though we have answered all three research questions in the discussion section, we noticed it is not presented well. Thank you for your comment. Now we have answered each question separately in the discussion section. 2. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? As mentioned in the previous answer, now we have revised the discussion section which clearly addresses all three research questions . 3. Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? The aim of this study is to identify the households that prefer to have a specific subsidy which is expected to lessen their financial burden during this pandemic. Therefore, we focus on the classification model which can predict more accurately the household’s choice. It is possible to test with other classification methods, and they might have better accuracy. However, we focus also the model interpretability, thus we use mostly on decision tree algorithm family plus naïve bayes algorithm. Machine learning models are always a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability (Hastie, Tibshirani, James, & Witten, 2021). Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., James, G., & Witten, D. (2021). An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd Edition). Springer Texts , 102 , 618. (chapter 2.1.3 page 24) 4. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. Different approaches, such as information-based learning, similarity-based learning, error-based learning, and probability-based learning, can be used to create classifiers. This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic .(Kelleher, Namee, & D’Arcy, 2015) Kelleher, J. D., Namee, B. Mac, & D’Arcy, A. (2015). Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Anayltics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies (Ist). The MIT Press. 5. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? The aim here is to predict household’s preference as much possible correctly. Thus we chose the model that performs the best compared to the rest. 6. If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). – Yes. We can divide the dataset in to 3 sets. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier and presented the results in the following table. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in classifier performance, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 7. Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. A flowchart has been provided. Thank you for your comment. 8. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Data partitioning ratio is considered as one of the parameters and the aim was to identify the best ratio that can provide better classification model. We also used k-fold cross validation method as explained earlier. 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Though we have answered all three research questions in the discussion section, we noticed it is not presented well. Thank you for your comment. Now we have answered each question separately in the discussion section. 2. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? As mentioned in the previous answer, now we have revised the discussion section which clearly addresses all three research questions . 3. Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? The aim of this study is to identify the households that prefer to have a specific subsidy which is expected to lessen their financial burden during this pandemic. Therefore, we focus on the classification model which can predict more accurately the household’s choice. It is possible to test with other classification methods, and they might have better accuracy. However, we focus also the model interpretability, thus we use mostly on decision tree algorithm family plus naïve bayes algorithm. Machine learning models are always a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability (Hastie, Tibshirani, James, & Witten, 2021). Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., James, G., & Witten, D. (2021). An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd Edition). Springer Texts , 102 , 618. (chapter 2.1.3 page 24) 4. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. Different approaches, such as information-based learning, similarity-based learning, error-based learning, and probability-based learning, can be used to create classifiers. This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic .(Kelleher, Namee, & D’Arcy, 2015) Kelleher, J. D., Namee, B. Mac, & D’Arcy, A. (2015). Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Anayltics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies (Ist). The MIT Press. 5. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? The aim here is to predict household’s preference as much possible correctly. Thus we chose the model that performs the best compared to the rest. 6. If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). – Yes. We can divide the dataset in to 3 sets. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier and presented the results in the following table. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in classifier performance, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 7. Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. A flowchart has been provided. Thank you for your comment. 8. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Data partitioning ratio is considered as one of the parameters and the aim was to identify the best ratio that can provide better classification model. We also used k-fold cross validation method as explained earlier. Competing Interests: No competing interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan , Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 12 Nov 2021 Author Response 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on ... Continue reading 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Though we have answered all three research questions in the discussion section, we noticed it is not presented well. Thank you for your comment. Now we have answered each question separately in the discussion section. 2. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? As mentioned in the previous answer, now we have revised the discussion section which clearly addresses all three research questions . 3. Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? The aim of this study is to identify the households that prefer to have a specific subsidy which is expected to lessen their financial burden during this pandemic. Therefore, we focus on the classification model which can predict more accurately the household’s choice. It is possible to test with other classification methods, and they might have better accuracy. However, we focus also the model interpretability, thus we use mostly on decision tree algorithm family plus naïve bayes algorithm. Machine learning models are always a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability (Hastie, Tibshirani, James, & Witten, 2021). Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., James, G., & Witten, D. (2021). An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd Edition). Springer Texts , 102 , 618. (chapter 2.1.3 page 24) 4. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. Different approaches, such as information-based learning, similarity-based learning, error-based learning, and probability-based learning, can be used to create classifiers. This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic .(Kelleher, Namee, & D’Arcy, 2015) Kelleher, J. D., Namee, B. Mac, & D’Arcy, A. (2015). Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Anayltics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies (Ist). The MIT Press. 5. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? The aim here is to predict household’s preference as much possible correctly. Thus we chose the model that performs the best compared to the rest. 6. If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). – Yes. We can divide the dataset in to 3 sets. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier and presented the results in the following table. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in classifier performance, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 7. Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. A flowchart has been provided. Thank you for your comment. 8. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Data partitioning ratio is considered as one of the parameters and the aim was to identify the best ratio that can provide better classification model. We also used k-fold cross validation method as explained earlier. 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Though we have answered all three research questions in the discussion section, we noticed it is not presented well. Thank you for your comment. Now we have answered each question separately in the discussion section. 2. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? As mentioned in the previous answer, now we have revised the discussion section which clearly addresses all three research questions . 3. Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? The aim of this study is to identify the households that prefer to have a specific subsidy which is expected to lessen their financial burden during this pandemic. Therefore, we focus on the classification model which can predict more accurately the household’s choice. It is possible to test with other classification methods, and they might have better accuracy. However, we focus also the model interpretability, thus we use mostly on decision tree algorithm family plus naïve bayes algorithm. Machine learning models are always a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability (Hastie, Tibshirani, James, & Witten, 2021). Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., James, G., & Witten, D. (2021). An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd Edition). Springer Texts , 102 , 618. (chapter 2.1.3 page 24) 4. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. Different approaches, such as information-based learning, similarity-based learning, error-based learning, and probability-based learning, can be used to create classifiers. This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic .(Kelleher, Namee, & D’Arcy, 2015) Kelleher, J. D., Namee, B. Mac, & D’Arcy, A. (2015). Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Anayltics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies (Ist). The MIT Press. 5. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? The aim here is to predict household’s preference as much possible correctly. Thus we chose the model that performs the best compared to the rest. 6. If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). – Yes. We can divide the dataset in to 3 sets. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier and presented the results in the following table. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in classifier performance, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 7. Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. A flowchart has been provided. Thank you for your comment. 8. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Data partitioning ratio is considered as one of the parameters and the aim was to identify the best ratio that can provide better classification model. We also used k-fold cross validation method as explained earlier. Competing Interests: No competing interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 16 Sep 2021 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 12 Nov 21 read read Version 1 16 Sep 21 read read read Setia Pramana , Politeknik, Statistika STIS, Jakarta, Indonesia; BPS Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Shahrinaz Ismail , Albukhary International University, Alor Setar, Malaysia Sreeja N.K , PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Pramana S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 31 May 2024 | for Version 2 Setia Pramana , Computational Statistics Department, Politeknik, Statistika STIS, Jakarta, Indonesia; BPS Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Pramana S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have addressed all suggested comments. I have no further comments to make. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Machine Learning, Data mining, statistics, official statistics, bioinformatics, biostatistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Pramana S. Peer Review Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100081) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2#referee-response-100081 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2021 N.K S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Dec 2021 | for Version 2 Sreeja N.K , Department of Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India 0 Views copyright © 2021 N.K S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have addressed the issues raised. The authors have reported the average results of cross validation. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Pattern recognition, Supervised Learning, Swarm Intelligence I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) N.K S. Peer Review Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79204.r100079) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2#referee-response-100079 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2021 N.K S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Oct 2021 | for Version 1 Sreeja N.K , Department of Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India 0 Views copyright © 2021 N.K S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have compared few classifiers on Effects of COVID-19 on the Economy and Individual - Round 2 data set to predict individual household preferences from ESP. I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. The authors can also perform some statistical tests to validate the results obtained from experiments. In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Supervised Learning, Swarm Intelligence I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan, Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia I would recommend the authors to use k-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier instead of a random 60-40 or 80-20 split. This would guarantee that all k subsets are used as a test set once. Thank you for your comments. As we are aimed to tune the parameters to get the optimal model from each machine learning techniques, separate tables were provided with the various parameter values. Also the data size was 40k. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in F-score values, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 In Page 4, (section Evaluation), TPR is the True positive rate and not as mentioned by the authors. Thank you for spotting this typo error. We have corrected it. View more View less Competing Interests No reply Respond Report a concern N.K S. Peer Review Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r97108) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-97108 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2021 Ismail S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 15 Oct 2021 | for Version 1 Shahrinaz Ismail , Albukhary International University, Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2021 Ismail S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Data analytics with knowledge management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan, Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia Since this is a full research paper, it is recommended that a Literature Review section be included. It is believed that there are some previous research that have performed the 4 ML techniques covered by this research, hence the need to also mention those and how they differ in results as compared to the results found in here. We have added brief literature review in the modelling section. Due to the limitation of total words to be within 2500 words, a separate section is not added. Some additional elaboration is required for technical parts of this paper, especially in clarifying the relation between the formula and the techniques used. Do all the formulas need to be performed for each of the 4 techniques? We employed standard performance indicators to evaluate the classification models. If there is a step taken before the evaluation that uses the formulas, please include them at least as summary. If this part is covered in the published paper (part 1), perhaps that should be mentioned. If this paper only covers the result on which technique is the best, then perhaps the title should reflect that. At the moment, the title does not reflect the research questions. We have revised the discussion section which summarizes the process and the results. Research questions are usually asked with the word "how" instead of "can". It would be more sound to rephrase them to "how". The research questions are rephrased to start with "how". View more View less Competing Interests No reply Respond Report a concern Ismail S. Peer Review Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95431) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-95431 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2021 Pramana S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 06 Oct 2021 | for Version 1 Setia Pramana , Computational Statistics Department, Politeknik, Statistika STIS, Jakarta, Indonesia; BPS Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2021 Pramana S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Lessmann S, Baesens B, Seow H, Thomas L: Benchmarking state-of-the-art classification algorithms for credit scoring: An update of research. European Journal of Operational Research . 2015; 247 (1): 124-136 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Machine Learning, Data mining, statistics, official statistics, bioinformatics, biostatistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 Nov 2021 Rathimala Kannan, Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia 1. Research questions and the discussion and conclusion are not inline. The authors mentioned three research questions, but they are not discussed throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors focus on comparing different methods for predicting household subsidy preferences. Please address the research question on the results and discussion as well. Though we have answered all three research questions in the discussion section, we noticed it is not presented well. Thank you for your comment. Now we have answered each question separately in the discussion section. 2. Please explain the question used in the study and why some questions are missing. Is it due to not being the focus of the study, or for other reasons? As mentioned in the previous answer, now we have revised the discussion section which clearly addresses all three research questions . 3. Please elaborate more on the discussion of the results of the study. What would be the impact of utilizing best methods for result of the stimulus, especially for the citizen? Would it be that big a difference if we use the other classification methods? The aim of this study is to identify the households that prefer to have a specific subsidy which is expected to lessen their financial burden during this pandemic. Therefore, we focus on the classification model which can predict more accurately the household’s choice. It is possible to test with other classification methods, and they might have better accuracy. However, we focus also the model interpretability, thus we use mostly on decision tree algorithm family plus naïve bayes algorithm. Machine learning models are always a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability (Hastie, Tibshirani, James, & Witten, 2021). Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., James, G., & Witten, D. (2021). An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd Edition). Springer Texts , 102 , 618. (chapter 2.1.3 page 24) 4. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods being compared in the study. Different approaches, such as information-based learning, similarity-based learning, error-based learning, and probability-based learning, can be used to create classifiers. This research used information based learning (a decision tree algorithm family) as the best model for explaining decision logic .(Kelleher, Namee, & D’Arcy, 2015) Kelleher, J. D., Namee, B. Mac, & D’Arcy, A. (2015). Fundamentals of Machine Learning for Predictive Data Anayltics: Algorithms, Worked Examples, and Case Studies (Ist). The MIT Press. 5. The result shows that the decision tree, gradient boost, and random forest, does not differ much, how will it affect the stimulus package? The aim here is to predict household’s preference as much possible correctly. Thus we chose the model that performs the best compared to the rest. 6. If the data changes would the results change? The authors may divide the data into testing, training and validation data set. Several times as discussed by this paper: Lessman et al. (2015 1 ). – Yes. We can divide the dataset in to 3 sets. We conducted K-fold cross validation method to evaluate the performance of a classifier and presented the results in the following table. When the data is partitioned with k= 5, and K=10, the findings reveal little difference in classifier performance, and the Gradient boosting tree performs best. When the data set is small, k-fold cross validation produces a superior model; but, when the data set is large, it produces no change. A current study backs up this conclusion (Marcot & Hanea, 2021). Marcot, B. G., & Hanea, A. M. (2021). What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis? Computational Statistics , 36 (3), 2009–2031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-00999-9 Machine Learning Technique Partitioning Ratio Target Variable: Moratorium Precision Sensitivity F-score Accuracy Decision Tree 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.779 0.727 0.752 0.802 Yes 0.816 0.854 0.834 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.770 0.702 0.735 0.789 Yes 0.801 0.851 0.826 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.772 0.697 0.733 0.789 Yes 0.799 0.854 0.826 Gradient Boosted Tree 60:40 No 0.891 0.711 0.791 0.844 Yes 0.821 0.938 0.876 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.786 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.889 0.705 0.787 0.841 Yes 0.818 0.938 0.874 Random Forest 80:20 (Gini Index) No 0.825 0.769 0.796 0.837 Yes 0.844 0.885 0.864 K=5-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.821 0.761 0.790 0.832 Yes 0.839 0.882 0.860 K=10-fold cross validation (Gini Index) No 0.826 0.757 0.790 0.833 Yes 0.837 0.887 0.862 Naïve Bayes 60:40 No 0.64 0.453 0.53 0.667 Yes 0.679 0.819 0.742 K=5-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 K=10-fold cross validation No 0.634 0.446 0.524 0.664 Yes 0.676 0.818 0.740 7. Please use a flowchart to explain the modelling and analysis process. A flowchart has been provided. Thank you for your comment. 8. Why discuss on different ratio partitioning, in this case it is better use simulation dataset to see the impact of the ratio into the results. Data partitioning ratio is considered as one of the parameters and the aim was to identify the best ratio that can provide better classification model. We also used k-fold cross validation method as explained earlier. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interest reply Respond Report a concern Pramana S. Peer Review Report For: COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender system using machine learning techniques [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2021, 10 :932 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.76592.r95430) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v1#referee-response-95430 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Kannan R et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932", templates : { twitter : "COVID-19 impact: Customised economic stimulus package recommender.... Kannan R et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/10-932/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/72976/79204") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "79204"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "100081": 6, "100080": 0, "97107": 0, "95429": 0, "97108": 22, "95431": 18, "95430": 49, "100079": 19, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "73467129-bbef-4bfa-a1d6-01e09b688f95"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });