Prediction of Student Performance in Academic and Military Learning Environment: Use of Multiple Linear Regression Predictive Model and Hypothesis Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The variance in students’ academic performance in a civilian institute and in a military technological institute could be linked to the environment of the competition available to the students. The magnitude of talent, domain of skills and volume of efforts students put are identical in both type of institutes. The significant factor is the physical training, students undergo in a military college. It is important to couple the dominating factor which is academic perceivable effort under a different environment with each students learning capability. This paper determine whether there is a relationship between students’ performance and influencing factors like academic aptitude, military or physical training, and the time spent on training need analysis (TNA) modules. A sample of 242 first year- undergraduate students from four different engineering programs (Marine, System, Civil, and Aeronautical) at Military College was used to explore this relationship. The multiple regression model used for predicting the students’ performance is adequate for independent variables of aptitude test score, time spent in physical training, and time spent in TNA modules. The values of R2 indicate that at least one of the predictor variables contributes to information for the prediction of the students’ performance. The model makes it possible to predict moderately the possibility of attrition in engineering program. This study verifies that military academy has a very defined and directed core engineering course load and TNA course load which every student must take. Therefore, choice of specific discipline have less impact than at civilian institutions. The early detection of students at academic risk is a useful instrument that can help to design mentoring strategies right from the end of admission process.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".