Identifying the Factor of Mathematical Reasoning That Affects the Ability to Programming Algorithm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the limited proficiency to engage in programming algorithms among university students in information technology and information system in several universities across Surabaya, Indonesia. The purpose of this research is to find the most influential factor in learning programming algorithm using a quantitative approach. The research subjects were second-semester information technology students in several private universities in Surabaya, Indonesia. The research instruments were mathematical reasoning and basic algorithm programming test. Mathematical reasoning tests incorporated linear algebraic, basic calculus, and mathematical logic. The data analysis used was variant-based Structural Equation Modelling, also known as Partial Least Squares - Structural Equation Modelling based on Smart-PLS 3. With α = 5%, the research results conclude that mathematical reasoning positively influences algorithm programming ability with an R score of 0.999, and that the most influential variable among mathematical reasoning abilities was algebra with an R score of 0.732.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it