An Effective Recommendation System to Forecast the Best Educational Program Using Machine Learning Classification Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After passing the 10th class, every student is eager to know which educational program will be the best for their higher education to match their career goal. Sometimes, they are very much confused to decide the best path for their higher education, and they need help to determine the best suitable academic program to develop their careers and achieve their goal. So, we introduce an effective recommendation system to forecast each student's best educational program for their career development. This proposed research is accomplished by utilizing machine learning (ML) approaches to forecast every student's best academic path based on their past academic performances and recommend them the best suitable academic program for their higher studies. Class 10th standard passing student data are supplied to this automated system, and a correlation-based feature selection approach is applied to extract the relevant features for each academic program. This study utilizes multiple ML algorithms to provide the best results and forecast each student's academic performance and select the best model based on their performance for each educational program. Hence, the best-selected model and related features are involved in the recommendation process to provide the best suitable academic path for achieving every student's career goals.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".