MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273219704

Using fuzzy techniques for students' evaluation

2010· article· en· W2273219704 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Conference on Computers · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFuzzy logicCompetence (human resources)JavaProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Programming languageMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The learning evaluation process tries to establish the degree of students' knowledge and competence assimilation. There are many learning evaluation methods from both pedagogical and system approach point of view. In this work we present a students' system evaluation based on fuzzy techniques. The proposed algorithm implementation is realized in Java. The importance and the role of fuzzy evaluation topics in the domain of evaluation of learning performance are discussed. Some connections and applications of these topics with the content of consecrated topics in a university environment examination are explored. A special emphasis is given to the applications of classical and fuzzy logic in the process of aggregation of specialist opinions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it