PENERAPAN METODE K-NEAREST NEIGHBOR DAN INFORMATION GAIN PADA KLASIFIKASI KINERJA SISWA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education is a very important problem in the development of a country. One way to reach the level of quality of education is to predict student academic performance. The method used is still using an ineffective way because evaluation is based solely on the educator's assessment of information on the progress of student learning. Information on the progress of student learning is not enough to form indicators in evaluating student performance and helping students and educators to make improvements in learning and teaching. K-Nearest Neighbor is an effective method for classifying student performance, but K-Nearest Neighbor has problems in terms of large vector dimensions. This study aims to predict the academic performance of students using the K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm with the Information Gain feature selection method to reduce vector dimensions. Several experiments were conducted to obtain an optimal architecture and produce accurate classifications. The results of 10 experiments with k values (1 to 10) in the student performance dataset with the K-Nearest Neighbor method showed the largest average accuracy of 74.068 while the K-Nearest Neighbor and Information Gain methods obtained the highest average accuracy of 76.553. From the results of these tests it can be concluded that Information Gain can reduce vector dimensions, so that the application of K-Nearest Neighbor and Information Gain can improve the accuracy of the classification of student performance better than using the K-Nearest Neighbor method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".