A Decision Model for Ranking Asian Higher Education Institutes Using an NLP-Based Text Analysis Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of the best institute for higher education has become one of the most challenging issues in the present education system. It has become more complicated as more institutes exist with extraordinary infrastructural facilities. Therefore, a decision model is required to identify the best institute for higher education based on multiple criteria. This article proposes a Natural Language Processing (NLP) -based decision model for the identification of the best higher education institute using MCDM methods. The existing decision models for the selection of the best higher education institutions consider a limited number of criteria for decision-making. In this proposed model, 17 criteria and 15 institute datasets have been identified for the development of the decision model through extensive research and experts opinion. The NLP-based text analysis approach is applied to extract the relevant information and convert it to a suitable format. As the relative importance of the criteria plays a crucial role in decision-making, CRITIC and Rank centroid methods are applied for the calculation of relative weights of criteria. TOPSIS method is used to generate the ranking grades of alternatives for each criterion. An objective function is defined to calculate the evaluation scores and select the best institute for higher education. It has been observed that the ranks obtained from the developed model match pretty well with the ranks obtained from other MCDM methods and the experts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it