MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118786276 · doi:10.46501/ijmtst061292

Graduate University Admission Predictorusing Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W3118786276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aashish Singhal and Saurabh Gautam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaScholarshipTest (biology)Test of English as a Foreign LanguageMedical educationFace (sociological concept)DreamPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsMathematics educationMedicineSociologyEnglish languageLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increase in the number of graduates who wish to pursue their education, it has become more challenging to get admission for the students in their dream university. Usually, newly graduate students are not knowledgeable of the requirements and the procedures of the postgraduate admission and might spent a considerable amount of money to get advice from consultancy organisations to help them identify their admission chances. Giving the limited number of universities that can be considered by a human consultant, however, this approach might be bias and inaccurate. Higher education in abroad universities generally means we have many options like Canada, USA, UK Germany, Italy, Australia etc. But we are focusing on only the students who want to do their Masters in America. Students who want to do masters in America have to write GRE (Graduate Records Examination) and TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language). Once they have attended the exams they have to prepare their SOP (statement of purpose) and LOR(letter of recommendation) which are one of the crucial factors they have to consider. These LOR and SOP plays a vital role if the student was looking for any scholarship. Prospective graduate students always face a dilemma deciding universities of their choice while applying to master's programs. While there are a good number of predictors and consultancies that guide a student, they aren't always reliable since decision is made on the basis of select past admissions. So, with increasing demand of further education, one must not be confused in where to apply. Then the students have to choose the universities they want to study or apply, we cannot apply to all the universities that will lead to lot of application fees. Here comes the problem that the student doesn’t know to which university he might get admission. There are some online blogs which help in these matters but they are not that much accurate and don't consider all the factors and there are some consultancy offices which will take lot of our money and time and sometimes they will give some false information.so our goal is to develop a model which will tell the students their chance of admission into a respective university. This model should consider all the crucial factors which plays a vital role in student admission process and should have high accuracy.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Modern Trends in Science and TechnologySame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207