IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00938-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine learning methods for “wicked” problems: exploring the complex drivers of modern slavery

Author

Listed:
  • Rosa Lavelle-Hill

    (The Alan Turing Institute
    University of Tübingen)

  • Gavin Smith

    (N/LAB, University of Nottingham)

  • Anjali Mazumder

    (The Alan Turing Institute)

  • Todd Landman

    (Rights Lab, University of Nottingham)

  • James Goulding

    (N/LAB, University of Nottingham)

Abstract

Forty million people are estimated to be in some form of modern slavery across the globe. Understanding the factors that make any particular individual or geographical region vulnerable to such abuse is essential for the development of effective interventions and policy. Efforts to isolate and assess the importance of individual drivers statistically are impeded by two key challenges: data scarcity and high dimensionality, typical of many “wicked problems”. The hidden nature of modern slavery restricts available data points; and the large number of candidate variables that are potentially predictive of slavery inflate the feature space exponentially. The result is a “small n, large p” setting, where overfitting and significant inter-correlation of explanatory variables can render more traditional statistical approaches problematic. Recent advances in non-parametric computational methods, however, offer scope to overcome such challenges and better capture the complex nature of modern slavery. We present an approach that combines non-linear machine-learning models and strict cross-validation methods with novel variable importance techniques, emphasising the importance of stability of model explanations via a Rashomon-set analysis. This approach is used to model the prevalence of slavery in 48 countries, with results bringing to light the importance of new predictive factors—such as a country’s capacity to protect the physical security of women, which has been previously under-emphasised in quantitative models. Further analyses uncover that women are particularly vulnerable to exploitation in areas where there is poor access to resources. Our model was then leveraged to produce new out-of-sample estimates of slavery prevalence for countries where no survey data currently exists.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosa Lavelle-Hill & Gavin Smith & Anjali Mazumder & Todd Landman & James Goulding, 2021. "Machine learning methods for “wicked” problems: exploring the complex drivers of modern slavery," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00938-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00938-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00938-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00938-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard W. Silverman, 2020. "Multiple‐systems analysis for the quantification of modern slavery: classical and Bayesian approaches," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 691-736, June.
    2. Andrew Guth & Robyn Anderson & Kasey Kinnard & Hang Tran, 2014. "Proper Methodology and Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Slavery Data: An Examination of the Global Slavery Index," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(4), pages 14-22.
    3. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    4. David Tickler & Jessica J. Meeuwig & Katharine Bryant & Fiona David & John A. H. Forrest & Elise Gordon & Jacqueline Joudo Larsen & Beverly Oh & Daniel Pauly & Ussif R. Sumaila & Dirk Zeller, 2018. "Modern slavery and the race to fish," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Todd Landman & Bernard W. Silverman, 2019. "Globalization and Modern Slavery," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 275-290.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doreen S. Boyd & Bertrand Perrat & Xiaodong Li & Bethany Jackson & Todd Landman & Feng Ling & Kevin Bales & Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick & James Goulding & Stuart Marsh & Giles M. Foody, 2021. "Informing action for United Nations SDG target 8.7 and interdependent SDGs: Examining modern slavery from space," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    3. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    4. Tantawy Moussa & Amir Allam & Mahmoud Elmarzouky, 2022. "Global modern slavery and sustainable development goals: Does institutional environment quality matter?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2230-2244, July.
    5. Arnaud Vaganay, 2016. "Cluster Sampling Bias in Government-Sponsored Evaluations: A Correlational Study of Employment and Welfare Pilots in England," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. David Winkelmann & Marius Ötting & Christian Deutscher & Tomasz Makarewicz, 2024. "Are Betting Markets Inefficient? Evidence From Simulations and Real Data," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 25(1), pages 54-97, January.
    7. Graham Elliott & Nikolay Kudrin & Kaspar Wüthrich, 2022. "Detecting p‐Hacking," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 887-906, March.
    8. Konrad Neumann & Ulrike Grittner & Sophie K Piper & Andre Rex & Oscar Florez-Vargas & George Karystianis & Alice Schneider & Ian Wellwood & Bob Siegerink & John P A Ioannidis & Jonathan Kimmelman & Ul, 2017. "Increasing efficiency of preclinical research by group sequential designs," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-9, March.
    9. Stephan B Bruns & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Miguel Baiao & Ilze Buligina, 2021. "Work Experience Led Programs and Employment Attainment," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 180-198.
    11. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    12. Julia Roloff & Michael J. Zyphur, 2019. "Null Findings, Replications and Preregistered Studies in Business Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 609-619, December.
    13. Olivier Binette & Rebecca C. Steorts, 2022. "On the reliability of multiple systems estimation for the quantification of modern slavery," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(2), pages 640-676, April.
    14. Ingmar Böschen, 2021. "Software review: The JATSdecoder package—extract metadata, abstract and sectioned text from NISO-JATS coded XML documents; Insights to PubMed central’s open access database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9585-9601, December.
    15. Freuli, Francesca & Held, Leonhard & Heyard, Rachel, 2022. "Replication Success under Questionable Research Practices - A Simulation Study," I4R Discussion Paper Series 2, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    16. Graham Elliott & Nikolay Kudrin & Kaspar Wuthrich, 2022. "The Power of Tests for Detecting $p$-Hacking," Papers 2205.07950, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    17. Marko Kovic & Nina Hänsli, 2017. "The Impact of Political Cleavages, Religiosity, and Values on Attitudes towards Nonprofit Organizations," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Pierre J C Chuard & Milan Vrtílek & Megan L Head & Michael D Jennions, 2019. "Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-7, January.
    20. Bilgin, Rumeysa, 2023. "The Selection Of Control Variables In Capital Structure Research With Machine Learning," SocArXiv e26qf, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00938-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.