MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159955930 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13741

USING MACHINE LEARNING AS A TOOL TO HELP GUIDE UNDECLARED/UNDECIDED FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS TOWARDS A DISCIPLINE

2019· article· en· W3159955930 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shashank Iyer, Chirag Variawa

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationMachine learningClass (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceDecision treeClassifier (UML)Computer scienceLogistic regressionRandom forestEngineering educationMathematics educationPsychologyEngineeringEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supervised Machine Learning classification algorithms are used to analyze the potential inclination of the undecided/undeclared first-year engineering students. The data exploration task is possible by building a dataset that comprises of questions based on significant attributes. These attributes hover around different disciplines of engineering being offered at the University of Toronto. This qualitative survey is distributed to upperclassmen students (3rd, 4th year and graduate students, N = 54) and undecided first-year engineering students (N = 29) Multi-class classification is a technique that is used to categorize the data into two or more classes, in this case, the different disciplines of engineering at University of Toronto. The dataset that is built, based on the answers provided by the upperclassmen, is programmed into different classification algorithms such as Logistic Regression, KNN (K-nearest neighbors), Decision Tree and Random Forest classifier. The algorithms are compared so as to identify the most appropriate one that can determine the specific class label of the upperclassmen based on the answers provided in the qualitative survey. The accuracy of the various algorithms is an indicator of the favorable algorithm that can serve as a tool to suggest the potential majors that could be pursued by the undecided/undeclared students. Moreover, the answers given by the upperclassmen is visually analyzed for identifying the patterns of inclination of the students belonging to different disciplines of engineering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207