Predicting University Dropout trough Data Mining: A systematic Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To make a systematic review of literature on the prediction of university student dropout through data mining techniques. Methods/Analysis: The study was developed as a systematic review of the literature of empirical research results regarding the prediction of university dropout. In this phase, the review protocol, the selection requirements for potential studies and the method for analyzing the content of the selected studies were provided. The classification presented in section 3 allowed answering the main research question. What are the aspects considered in the prediction of university student desertion through data mining? Findings: University dropout is a problem which affects universities around the world, with consequences such as reduced enrolment, reduced revenue for the university, and financial losses for the State which funds the studies, and also constitutes a social problem for students, their families, and society in general. Hence the importance of predicting university dropout, that is to say identify dropout students in advance, in order to design strategies to tackle this problem. Novelty /Improvement: This is the first work to perform an integral systematic literature review about university dropout prediction through data mining, with studies from 2006–2018. Keywords: Data Mining, Dropout Factors, Dropout Prediction, Machine Learning, University Student Dropout
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".