MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205940441 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v1i1.55

Family Economic Correlation To Students Learning Achievment Using Apriori Method

2021· article· en· W3205940441 on OpenAlexaff
Nurhayati Nurhayati, Juliana Naftali Sitompul, Tri Kartika Sari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApriori algorithmAssociation rule learningA priori and a posterioriValue (mathematics)Transactional leadershipAssociation (psychology)Computer sciencePsychologyMathematics educationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The education system in Indonesia as mandated in the GBHN aims to educate the nation while at the same time responding to new challenges to create a decent and prosperous life. Understanding, apprecation, and experience of cultural and religious values in the right and true form will be increasingly needed. The economic status of the family is one of the factors that is sufficient to support the level of continuing education, especially for teenagers who are still student in school. Apriori method is used to obtain association rules that describe the relationship between item in the transactional database. There are two databases used, each of which has a different number of transactions. This study aims to aplly the apriori algorithm, as an analytical technique. The data taken as a case example is familiy economic data. This association search uses WEKA which will later find the rules and MySQL as the placeholder for the Database. From the results of the analysis using apriori, the highest confidence value was obtained at 0.9 with support 0.1 resulting in a students rule whose economics supported the learning achievement was very supportive, and the lowest confidence value of 0.2 with support 0.1 resulted in a students rule who had sufficient economics, so their learning achievement was also quite increased..

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207