A Comparison of Undersampling, Oversampling, and SMOTE Methods for Dealing with Imbalanced Classification in Educational Data Mining
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
Educational data mining is capable of producing useful data-driven applications (e.g., early warning systems in schools or the prediction of students’ academic achievement) based on predictive models. However, the class imbalance problem in educational datasets could hamper the accuracy of predictive models as many of these models are designed on the assumption that the predicted class is balanced. Although previous studies proposed several methods to deal with the imbalanced class problem, most of them focused on the technical details of how to improve each technique, while only a few focused on the application aspect, especially for the application of data with different imbalance ratios. In this study, we compared several sampling techniques to handle the different ratios of the class imbalance problem (i.e., moderately or extremely imbalanced classifications) using the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 dataset. For our comparison, we used random oversampling (ROS), random undersampling (RUS), and the combination of the synthetic minority oversampling technique for nominal and continuous (SMOTE-NC) and RUS as a hybrid resampling technique. We used the Random Forest as our classification algorithm to evaluate the results of each sampling technique. Our results show that random oversampling for moderately imbalanced data and hybrid resampling for extremely imbalanced data seem to work best. The implications for educational data mining applications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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