MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning Analytics based on Bayesian Optimization of Support Vector Machines with Application to Student Success Prediction in Mathematics Course

2020· article· en· W3135555450 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Lahmiri, Raafat George Saadé, Danielle Morin, Fassil Nebebe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer sciencePolynomial kernelArtificial intelligenceKernel (algebra)Machine learningk-nearest neighbors algorithmBayesian optimizationPolynomialRadial basis functionGraph kernelKernel methodAnalyticsPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningMathematicsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning analytics is receiving a growing attention from both machine learning and education communities, where support vector machines (SVM) are gaining popularity over existing data mining techniques. In the scope of this work, we employ SVM to predict student success in mathematics course in Portugal under two common nonlinear kernel functions: polynomial and radial basis function kernel. In addition, we employ the k-nearest-neighbor (kNN) algorithm as a reference model since it is known to be fast and effective in various classification problems. Furthermore, we adopt the Bayesian optimization (BO) technique in a cross-validation framework to optimize SVM key parameters; namely, the slack parameter and penalty coefficient. The obtained experimental results show that the SVM outperform k-nearest-neighbor algorithm under both nonlinear kernel functions. Additionally, processing time associated with SVM optimization process increases with polynomial order. Furthermore, the SVM trained with third-order polynomial kernel performs the best. Finally, k-nearest-neighbor algorithm is found to be faster compared to all SVM classifiers.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207