MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183367725 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2021.55003

Health Evaluation Model of higher Education based on optimized BP Neural Network Model

2021· article· en· W3183367725 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Technologies in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisArtificial neural networkComputer scienceSustainable developmentConstruct (python library)Component (thermodynamics)Convergence (economics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper mainly studies the comprehensive evaluation of the development level of higher education system, and establishes the health evaluation model and sustainable evaluation model. First of all, this paper divides the indicators of higher education into three aspects, collects the data of 7 countries with different development levels, and establishes 11 indicators for evaluating the development quality of higher education. Principal component analysis is used to reduce 11 secondary indicators to 3 first-level indicators. Secondly, the BP neural network is used to construct three first-order indexes as input vectors, and genetic algorithm is used to improve the accuracy and convergence of the model.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.365 · 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