MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080373144 · doi:10.5539/res.v12n3p66

Clustering Applied to the Education: A K-means and Hierarchical Application

2020· article· en· W3080373144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Víctor Daniel Gil Vera, Isabel Cristina Puerta Lópera, Catalina Quintero López

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisHierarchical clusteringComputer scienceMathematics educationInformation and Communications TechnologySimilarity (geometry)Statistical analysisWorld Wide WebPsychologyStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, most schools in the world use ICT, which is why students must make use of computers and mobile devices in and out of schools. Thanks to the use of technology, students are more interested and motivated to learn, considering that motivation is one of the main engines of learning, since it encourages activity and thought. On the other hand, motivation makes students spend more time working and therefore they are more likely to learn more. The aim of this paper was to present a clustering of European countries according to the number of desktop computers available to students in primary schools (ISCED 1), lower secondary schools (ISCED 2) and upper secondary schools (ISCED 3). Was used the database developed by the ES Open Data Portal for the year 2019 on "ICT in Education". For the classification were used the hierarchical clustering and K-means techniques and the statistical software Rcran 3.6.3. These techniques were used as they have the ability to group a large number of elements into clusters, based on the similarity learned. This paper concludes that the countries with the highest GDP are not the ones that have the most desktop computers in their schools. Bulgaria is the country with the major number of desktop computers in their schools.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207