In France they've at least published the data types they're using for scoring people who need benefits: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24179765-les-ci

In France they've at least published the data types they're using for scoring people who need benefits: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24179765-les-cibles-_-variables-2014-datamining-caf-le-monde-likelihood-par-parametre https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24179765-les-cibles-... Yet, publishing data types is not enough; to gain even a glimpse of the actual scoring and its robustness, you need also information about the algorithm in use, its performance metrics, error statistics, distributions, missing values (which are apparently too present), etc. All these should be available through a FOI (and if not, a request should be brought to a court). Given how much even peer reviewed ML research is flawed, the stakes are high for an administration to demonstrate robustness (or a claimant to demonstrate otherwise). The lawfulness/lawlessness they discuss in this piece is an entirely different question.