Online Recruitment Fraud Detection: A Machine
Learning-based Model for Job Websites
Nikhil Ranjan
Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala , Punjab,
India.
CGC Jhanjeri , Mohali -140307 ,Punjab, India.
ABSTRACT
The difficulty of hiring and applying for employment
abroad has been made easier by the rise of internet
job boards. Unfortunately, there is a chance that
dishonest recruiters will take advantage of the gaps in
the online hiring process and con desperate job
searchers. This cruel act has not been stopped despite
the reactive method to identifying online job fraud
and the accompanying warnings on reliable
employment websites. A machine learning model for
proactive employment fraud detection is what this
work aims to do. An employment fraud dataset from
a job posting company in Ghana was used to create
the predictive model. By contrasting traditional and
ensemble machine learning algorithms, a job fraud
detection model was created using the 10-fold and 5-
fold cross-validation techniques.
Keywords
Supervised Algorithm, Ensemble Learning, Job Fraud,
Employment Scam, Online Recruitment Fraud
I. INTRODUCTION
Unemployment among recent graduates, particularly in
Africa, continues to be a problem for international
governmental organisations, policy groups, and academic
institutions [1–3]. Every graduate hopes to find a job after
graduation that will be a solid basis for their future
success, prospects, and families. The paradox is that
while there aren't many jobs available, more students are
enrolling in postsecondary schools around the world.
Data from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics show that
over the previous 20 years, the overall number of tertiary
students globally has doubled. Between 2000 and 2020,
tertiary enrollment climbed by an astounding 240% in
South and West Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific, while it
increased by 84% in Central and Eastern Europe. The
average enrollment increase in Sub-Saharan African
nations by 2020 was 9.4%, with Mauritius having the
greatest gross tertiary enrollment at 40%. In the same
year, estimates for enrollment in Ghana and Togo were
15% and 4.4%, respectively, for Niger. The Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
2021 report reveals that from 2017 to 2021, the global
unemployment rate was quite high [37]. With 1.4%,
Republic reported the lowest figure. For postsecondary
graduates aged 25 to 64, the average unemployment rate
for OECD members was 4.3%. Within the same year, the
average unemployment rate for upper secondary, non-
tertiary students rose to 6.4%. According to a different
Statista 2022 research, South Africa has the highest
unemployment rate in Sub-Saharan Africa at 34%,
followed by Djibouti at 28%. The lowest rate of
unemployment is 1% in Niger, while the highest rate is
5% in Ghana. According to Statista 2022, Sub-Saharan
Africa had an average unemployment rate of 8%.
Graduating students spend more time at home, adding to
their anger at not being able to find work, especially after
university education.
A. Purpose of Study
According to the problem definition, it is now required to
use online job filtering to identify recruiter-posted high-
risk jobs. This study compares conventional and
ensemble algorithms using the 10-fold and 5-fold cross-
validation procedures in order to suggest a machine-
learning model for Ghanaian employment portals. The
study was influenced by the following research inquiries:
(1) Using the 10-fold and 5-fold cross-
validation procedures, which algorithm
provides the best accuracy between
traditional and ensemble methods?
(2) What are the highest F-measure and
AUCROC post-classification scores for the
traditional and ensemble algorithms?
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Numerous warning statements and policy documents
have been posted on the websites of respectable job
platforms as a result of the fraud committed by recruiters
utilising online job portals [38, 44, 45]. In addition to
demanding payment before candidates receive the ghost
job, vengeful recruiters harass female candidates and use
persistent techniques to obtain crucial information from
candidates [46]. The use of natural language processing
(NLP) for text-based job classification is covered in the
review's first section. The identification of keywords in
job descriptions, application procedures, and other
pertinent job modules is part of text-based job
classification. With text-based job classification, the
labelling of a text as fraudulent might be adversely
impacted by the labelling of a text without verification or
a complaint from a job seeker. On the Employment Scam
Aegean Dataset (EMSCAD), Naudé et al. [23] applied
empirical rule set-based features, transformer models,
word embeddings, and a bag-of-word (BoW) feature
selection mechanism to classify the text-based job types
as corporate identity theft, real job, multi-level
Figure 1: Methodological Framework
marketing, and identity theft. Multi-level marketing
refers to commission-based programmes that persuade
candidates to forward the fraudulent job adverts to other
candidates, whereas corporate identity theft comprises of
illegal employment advertisements that falsely claim to
come from legitimate companies. The three feature
selection strategies were tested for F1-score and
Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) using the
AdaBoost (AB), Gradient Boosting (GB), Random
Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision
Tree (CART), k-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), Stochastic
Gradient Descent (SGD), and Logistic Regression (LR)
algorithms.
Using the EMSCAD reference template, Tabassum et al.
[24] tracked 4000 instances of datasets from various
employment websites in Bangladesh. The aggregated
data included 301 fictitious jobs and 3699 actual
employment. When pre- The Term Frequency Inverse
Document Frequency (TF-IDF) was used to classify the
data and establish the weight of frequently appearing text
in the dataset. The accuracy of the Voting Classifier
(VC), LightGBM (LG), LR, CART, RF, AB, GB, and
LightGBM (LG) classifiers was examined, and the
outcome was compared with the EMSCAD dataset. After
feature selection, the Voting Classifier method proved to
be the most accurate classifier, with a 95.34% accuracy
rate.
A. Findings and Gaps in Literature Review
The literature review demonstrates the usage of the
EMSCAD dataset from Kaggle as the default dataset for
identifying online employment fraud. Improving
accuracy from the EMSCAD dataset became a priority
because the majority of researchers were unable to
discover a country-based adequate dataset to tailor
recruitment fraud detection on job portals to respective
countries. With the exception of Tabassum et al. [24] and
Mahbub et al. [27], who used datasets other than
EMSCAD, the remaining scant literature relied on
comparisons of machine learning performance metrics.
The lack of comparison amongst cross-validation
methods is the second finding from the review. The only
study that examined 10-fold and 5-fold crossvalidation
approaches without also comparing the results with other
algorithms was that of Alghamdi & Alharby [28].
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Jobweb Ghana job scam dataset, which was cleansed
during data preparation, serves as the foundation of the
research technique, as illustrated in Figure 1. Using the
SMOTE over-sampling method, the dataset is examined
for data imbalances. In order to compare the traditional
and ensemble ML algorithms, the model is built using 10-
fold and 5-fold cross-validation procedures. The best ML
model is then applied after feature selection is carried out
to compare performance to the starting accuracy.
A. The Dataset
The data on employment fraud was taken from Jobweb
Ghana, the second-largest job portal in Ghana
(www.jobwebghana.com) [48]. Between 2019 and 2021,
tracking fraudulent jobs was done based on complaints
from job searchers and verification by Jobweb Ghana.
Since the researcher founded Jobweb Ghana, there is
ample documentation regarding the tracking of
fraudulent job postings by employers. The dataset on

Figure 2: (a) Default class label; (b) SMOTE filter

employment fraud consists of 499 cases, of which Location City; Town
27.86% are fake jobs and 72.14 % are real jobs. As seen
in Table 1, while submitting a job advertisement on Company Phone Number Yes; No
Jobweb Ghana, recruiters primarily employ eleven
attributes. When posting job advertisements, 71.74% of
Main Method of
employers reserve the actual name of their companies in
the company's name. A little over 60% of job descriptions Application
Email; Address; Website
are lengthy, and 33.47% include compensation ranges. A
Class Genuine; Fraudulent
staggering 82.57% of recruiters do not utilise their firm
logo, however most of them do mention the deadline for
job applications. Additionally, the research shows that
64.33% of recruiters match the job description to the
required qualifications however most do not include their
A. SMOTE Oversampling Filter
contact information. Most job possibilities are found in In order to boost data instances for the minority class by
cities, especially Accra and Kumasi, and employers 150% and avoid over-fitting, the SMOTE filter was used.
prefer that applicants submit their applications by email, As seen in Figure 2, the implementation of the SMOTE
which accounts for 86.77% of all submissions. oversampling filter to address data imbalances has
resulted in an increase in the number of fraudulent default
class instances from 139 to 347.
Table 1: Attributes for Job Scam Dataset
B. Conventional and Ensemble ML Algorithms
Attribute Options Multiple machine learning models are incorporated into
the prediction process through ensemble learning, a
Company Name Open; Reserved multi-classifier system. To improve classification results,
weak learners are grouped into ensembles and used as
Job Description Long; Moderate; Short foundation models [30].
An ensemble algorithm built on the boosting approach is
Salary Disclosure Yes; No called AdaBoost (AB). As an iterative algorithm, AB
builds a high-performing final algorithm using a number
Multiple Categories Yes; No of weak learners on the same training dataset. Two
weights are employed by AdaBoost, one for each weak
Full-time; Part-time;
learning method and the other for the training set sample
[31].
Contract
Employment Type The Bagging approach creates a single classifier from
Application Deadline Disclosed; Undisclosed many bootstrapped subsamples taken from a dataset.
Using various uniform samples from the learning
Company Logo Yes; No algorithm, bagging builds a diversified predictive model.
Bootstrap aggregation is the foundation for bagging [31]
The Support Vector Machine (SVM) performs non-linear
Degree Required Standard; Low
classification by mapping inputs to high-dimensional
feature space. By increasing the distance between the
margin and the classes, SVM draws a margin between AdaBoost 91.09 0.911 0.961
classes in an effort to decrease classification error [32]. (DT)
Bagging 90.81 0.908 0.931
A probabilistic machine learning algorithm built on the
(SVM)
Bayes theorem is called Naive Bayes (NB). With the
Bagging 90.24 0.902 0.958
assumption that an event will occur based on another (NB)
occurrence, conditional probability, NB employs Bagging 91.80 0.918 0.967
independent features to derive a posterior probability (RF)
[33]. Simple decision rules are applied from the root to Bagging 91.51 0.915 0.964
the leaf, the terminal node, in the Decision Tree (DT). (DT)
The DT algorithm employs splitting to create sub-nodes
in a hierarchical manner up until the final terminal, Table 3: ML Performance metrics for the 5-fold
where all conceivable outcomes are realised [34]. technique
Classifier Accuracy F1-score ROC
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS (%) Value
In this section, WEKA's 10-fold and 5-fold SVM 90.10 0.901 0.901
crossvalidation algorithms are used to compare the NB 90.10 0.901 0.958
outcomes of traditional and ensemble machine learning.
RF 91.51 0.915 0.963
The SMOTE over-sampling filter-generated dataset is the
one that was used in this analysis. J48 DT 90.66 0.907 0.938
A. 10-fold and 5-fold Cross-Validation AdaBoost 89.82 0.898 0.951
Experiments (SVM)
The 10-fold cross-validation method employs nine AdaBoost 90.10 0.901 0.919
sections of the dataset, originally split into ten for training (NB)
and one for testing, iteratively. Ten times of the method AdaBoost 91.80 0.918 0.944
are randomly repeated, which helps avoid over-fitting. (RF)
The 5-fold cross-validation uses five divisions rather than AdaBoost 91.65 0.917 0.960
ten, with four for training and the final one for iterative (DT)
testing. Bagging 89.96 0.900 0.930
(SVM)
Research Question 1: How accurate can conventional Bagging (NB) 90.10 0.901 0.958
and ensemble algorithms be used with 10-fold and 5-fold
cross-validation, respectively? Bagging (RF) 91.65 0.917 0.963

Tables 2 and 3 show that among the standard algorithms, Bagging (DT) 90.95 0.909 0.960
the 10-fold technique has the best accuracy (91.94%),
while the 5-fold technique has the lowest accuracy
(91.51%). The accuracy of 91.80% for Bagging (RF) Research Question 2: What are the highest F-measure
using the 10-fold and AdaBoost (RF) using the 5-fold and AUCROC after classification values for traditional
technique is the same for the best ensemble classifiers. and ensemble algorithms?
The classic RF algorithm with 10-fold crossvalidation
Apart from accuracy, the F1-score and AUC-ROC are
has the highest accuracy (91.94%), which is 0.14% better
two crucial metrics that do not explain the confusion
than the ensemble method.
matrix. The AUC-ROC measures the degree of
Table 2: ML Performance metrics for the 10-fold separability between the classes in the confusion matrix,
technique whereas the F-measure calculates the harmonic mean of
precision and recall. The algorithm with the highest value
Classifier Accuracy F1-score ROC
to 1 in F1-score and AUC-ROC is more significant in
(%) Value
terms of precision, recall, and class separability metrics.
SVM 90.09 0.901 0.901
The conventional RF from the 10-fold approach still has
NB 89.95 0.900 0.958 the greatest F1-score, which is 0.919, as seen in Tables 2
RF 91.94 0.919 0.962 and 3. The highest AUC-ROC value is found in the
ensemble Bagging (RF) utilising the 10-fold approach,
J48 DT 91.09 0.911 0.941 with a value of 0.967.
AdaBoost 90.95 0.909 0.959
V. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
(SVM)
AdaBoost 89.96 0.900 0.923 Online job posting and recruitment have become more
(NB) appealing to employers due to the expanding use of the
AdaBoost 91.23 0.912 0.946 internet worldwide. False employers, however, have
(RF) exploited desperate job seekers by using a variety of
strategies, including alluring pay ranges, lowering the
qualifying level, choosing several categories, and
concealing firm information to commit fraud. The
majority of the research included in the paper used the
EMSCAD dataset from Kaggle to build a predictive
model for detecting online recruitment fraud. On the
EMSCAD dataset, Dutta & Bandyopadhyay [25] use the
Random Tree technique without cross-validation and
attain an accuracy of 98.27%. On the EMSCAD dataset,
Amaar et al. [26], likewise without crossvalidation,
achieved an accuracy of 99.9% using the Extra Tree
Classifier. The cross-validation methodology and the
SMOTE oversampling filter to prevent class imbalances
were used in this suggested method for detecting online
job fraud in Ghana. The Random Forest emerged as the
best classifier using the 10-fold cross-validation
method, with an accuracy of 91.94%. The outcome is
comparable to the job fraud detection model developed
by Mahbub et al. [27] using Australian Gumtree data.
The RF also won out as the top classifier in their
investigation. Despite using data from Bangladeshi
employment websites, Tabassum et al.'s [24] accuracy
was high but deceptive since the cross-validation
procedure that checks over-fitting was not applied.
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
WORK
Due to their unemployment and desperation for work,
graduates are increasingly becoming targets of recruiting
fraud both internationally and in Ghana. Some graduates
continue to fall victim to these nefarious fraudsters
despite receiving warnings about recruitment fraud from
respected online employment platforms. Most victims of
job fraud pay the sham recruiters, and occasionally they
reveal their personal information. Online job fraud is so
prevalent in Ghana that reputable businesses occasionally
publish notices in print media cautioning job searchers.
Since the researcher founded Jobweb Ghana, adequate
information regarding the primary characteristics of
dishonest recruiters and their deceptive job descriptions
was gathered over the course of the study.
The suggested method used 10-fold and 5-fold cross-
validation approaches to compare traditional and
ensemble machine learning algorithms. The SMOTE
over-sampling filter was employed to enhance class
imbalances by 150% when dealing with minority class
instances. A classification bias towards the majority class
is avoided with the SMOTE filter. The F1-score, which
calculates the mean between precision and recall, was
examined in addition to classification accuracy. The level
of separability between the class labels, as indicated by
the AUC-ROC value, was also provided. Even after
feature selection, the 10fold cross-validation technique
outperformed the 5-fold cross-validation. The
classification accuracy of the traditional and ensemble
machine learning algorithms slightly declined after
feature selection. In conclusion, the feature selection
process was not appropriate for the dataset.
Future study will include a comparison of deep
neural networks to traditional machine algorithms
and ensemble learning techniques. Multiple hidden
layers in deep neural networks can improve
machine learning output metrics. Implementing
Reinforcement Learning (RL) software agents to
continuously analyse harmful job postings to detect
online recruiting fraud is another worthwhile study.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Osmani, V. Weerakkody, N. Hindi, and T. Eldabi,
“Graduates employability skills: A review of literature
against market demand,” J. Educ. Bus., vol. 94, no. 7, pp.
423–432, 2019, doi: 10.1080/08832323.2018.1545629.
[2] O. Fakunle and H. Higson, “Interrogating theoretical and
empirical approaches to employability in different global
regions,” High. Educ. Q., vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 525–534,
2021, doi: 10.1111/hequ.12345.
[3] L. Graham, L. Williams, and C. Chisoro, “Barriers to the
labour market for unemployed graduates in South Africa,”
J. Educ. Work, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 360–376, 2019, doi:
10.1080/13639080.2019.1620924.
[4] R. C. Sewell, M. Martin, S. Barnett, and C. Jenter,
“Graduating to success in employment: ow social media
can aid college students in the job search,” John J.
Heldrich Cent. Work. Dev., no. September, pp. 1–12,
2011, [Online]. Available:
http://staging.helc01002.svmsolutions.com/sites/default/fi
les/content/Graduat ing_to_Success_Brief.pdf.
[5] S. Monteiro, L. Almeida, and A. García-Aracil, “‘It’s a
very different world’: work transition and employability of
higher education graduates,” High. Educ. Ski. Work.
Learn., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 164–181, 2021, doi:
10.1108/HESWBL-10-2019-0141.
[6] C. S. Johnston, “A Systematic Review of the Career
Adaptability Literature and Future Outlook,” J. Career
Assess., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 3–30, 2018, doi:
10.1177/1069072716679921.
[7] K. G. Liakos, P. Busato, D. Moshou, S. Pearson, and D.
Bochtis, “Machine learning in agriculture: A review,”
Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1–29, 2018, doi:
10.3390/s18082674.
[8] A. Sharma, A. Jain, P. Gupta, and V. Chowdary, “Machine
Learning Applications for Precision Agriculture: A
Comprehensive Review,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 4843–
4873, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048415.
[9] H. K. Bharadwaj et al., “A Review on the Role of Machine
Learning in Enabling IoT Based Healthcare Applications,”
IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 38859–38890, 2021, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3059858.
[10] P. Doupe, J. Faghmous, and S. Basu, “Machine Learning
for Health Services Researchers,” Value Heal., vol. 22, no.
7, pp. 808–815, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.012.
[11] D. K. Dake and E. Gyimah, “Using sentiment analysis to
evaluate qualitative students’ responses,” Educ. Inf.
Technol., 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11349-1.
[12] C. Buabeng-andoh, “Using Machine Learning Techniques
to Predict Seasonal Rainfall-New,” vol. 2022, 2022.
[13] C. Romero and S. Ventura, “Educational data mining and
learning analytics: An updated survey,” Wiley Interdiscip.
Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–21,
2020, doi: 10.1002/widm.1355.
[14] T. Wuest, D. Weimer, C. Irgens, and K. D. Thoben,
“Machine learning in manufacturing: Advantages,
challenges, and applications,” Prod. Manuf. Res., vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 23–45, 2016, doi:
10.1080/21693277.2016.1192517.
[15] T. T. Ademujimi, M. P. Brundage, and V. V. Prabhu, “A
Review of Current Machine Learning Techniques Used in
Manufacturing Diagnosis,” IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun.
Technol., vol. 513, pp. 407–415, 2017, doi: 10.1007/9783-
319-66923-6_48.
[16] Z. Ge, Z. Song, S. X. Ding, and B. Huang, “Data Mining
and Analytics in the Process Industry: The Role of
Machine Learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 20590–
20616, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2756872.
[17] F. Zantalis, G. Koulouras, S. Karabetsos, and D. Kandris,
“A review of machine learning and IoT in smart
transportation,” Futur. Internet, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–23,
2019, doi: 10.3390/FI11040094.
[18] Y. Sirisha, S. S. Garlapati, D. Dubey, G. Shashank Reddy,
and N. Shashi Kiran, “Traffic Prediction for Intelligent
Transportation System,” Ymer, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 499–
504, 2022, doi: 10.37896/YMER21.05/56.
[19] R. V. Belfin, E. Grace Mary Kanaga, and S. Kundu,
“Application of Machine Learning in the Social Network,”
Recent Adv. Hybrid Metaheuristics Data
Clust., no. June, pp. 61–83, 2020, doi:
10.1002/9781119551621.ch4.
[20] B. T.k., C. S. R. Annavarapu, and A. Bablani, “Machine
learning algorithms for social media analysis: A survey,”
Comput. Sci. Rev., vol. 40, p. 100395, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100395.
[21] T. Petry, C. Treisch, and M. Peters, “Designing job ads to
stimulate the decision to apply: a discrete choice
experiment with business students,” Int. J. Hum. Resour.
Manag., vol. 33, no. 15, pp. 3019–3055, 2022, doi:
10.1080/09585192.2021.1891112.
[22] J. A. Rios, G. Ling, R. Pugh, D. Becker, and A. Bacall,
“Identifying Critical 21st-Century Skills for Workplace
Success: A Content Analysis of Job Advertisements,”
Educ. Res., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 80–89, 2020, doi:
10.3102/0013189X19890600.
[23] M. Naudé, K. J. Adebayo, and R. Nanda, “A machine
learning approach to detecting fraudulent job types,” AI
Soc., no. 2016, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00146-022-01469-0.
[24] H. Tabassum, G. Ghosh, A. Atika, and A. Chakrabarty,
“Detecting Online Recruitment Fraud Using Machine
Learning,” 2021 9th Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Technol.
ICoICT 2021, pp. 472–477, 2021, doi:
10.1109/ICoICT52021.2021.9527477.
[25] S. Dutta and S. K. Bandyopadhyay, “Fake job recruitment
detection using machine learning approach,” Int. J. Eng.
Trends Technol., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 48–53, 2020, doi:
10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V68I4P209S.
[26] A. Amaar, W. Aljedaani, F. Rustam, S. Ullah, V.
Rupapara, and S. Ludi, “Detection of Fake Job Postings by
Utilizing Machine Learning and Natural Language
Processing Approaches,” Neural Process. Lett., vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 2219–2247, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11063-
02110727-z.
[27] S. Mahbub, E. Pardede, and A. S. M. Kayes, “Online
Recruitment Fraud Detection: A Study on Contextual
Features in Australian Job Industries,” IEEE Access, vol.
10, no. May, pp. 82776–82787,
2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3197225.
[28] B. Alghamdi and F. Alharby, “An Intelligent Model for
Online Recruitment Fraud Detection,” J. Inf. Secur., vol.
10, no. 03, pp. 155–176, 2019, doi:
10.4236/jis.2019.103009.
[29] A. Mehboob and M. S. I. Malik, “Smart Fraud Detection
Framework for Job Recruitments,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol.
46, no. 4, pp. 3067–3078, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13369-
02004998-2.
[30] Z. Asghari Varzaneh, M. Shanbehzadeh, and H.
KazemiArpanahi, “Prediction of successful aging using
ensemble machine learning algorithms,” BMC Med.
Inform. Decis. Mak., vol. 22, no. 1, p. 258, 2022, doi:
10.1186/s12911022-02001-6.
[31] X. Dong, Z. Yu, W. Cao, Y. Shi, and Q. Ma, “A survey on
ensemble learning,” Front. Comput. Sci., vol. 14, no. 2, pp.
241–258, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11704-019-8208-z.
[32] A. Dey, “Machine Learning Algorithms: A Review,” Int.
J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1174–1179,
2016, [Online]. Available: www.ijcsit.com.
[33] F. J. Yang, “An implementation of naive bayes classifier,”
Proc. - 2018 Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Comput. Intell. CSCI
2018, pp. 301–306, 2018, doi:
10.1109/CSCI46756.2018.00065.
[34] B. Charbuty and A. Abdulazeez, “Classification Based on
Decision Tree Algorithm for Machine Learning,” J. Appl.
Sci. Technol. Trends, vol. 2, no. 01, pp. 20–28, 2021, doi:
10.38094/jastt20165.
[35] Z. Wu, W. Lin, Z. Zhang, A. Wen, and L. Lin, “An
Ensemble Random Forest Algorithm for Insurance Big
Data Analysis,” Proc. - 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Sci.
Eng. IEEE/IFIP Int. Conf. Embed. Ubiquitous Comput.
CSE EUC 2017, vol. 1, pp. 531–536, 2017, doi:
10.1109/CSE-EUC.2017.99.
[36] UNESCO (2020, December 16). UNESCO IESALC
report reveals that access to higher education increased
from 19% to 38% in the last two decades.
https://www.iesalc.unesco.org/en/2020/12/16/unescoiesal
c-report-reveals-that-access-to-higher-
educationincreased-from-19-to-38-in-the-last-two-
decades/
[37] OECD (2021). Unemployment rates by education level.
https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rates-
byeducation-level.htm