MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379347729 · doi:10.5296/gjes.v9i1.21040

Predictive Analysis on Students’ Academic Performance in Mathematics

2023· article· en· W4379347729 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charlene S. Silangan, Rashidah M. Mocsir, Ruth M. Regner, Emerson D. Peteros

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Educational Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsLa Cité Collégiale
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPersonalityAcademic achievementMedical educationRegression analysisDescriptive statisticsQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineMathematicsGeographyStatisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aimed to determine the predictors of academic performance in mathematics of Grade 10 students using descriptive correlational design. The respondents were 435 Grade 10 students from the three identified public high schools in Lapu-Lapu City and Liloan, Cebu, Philippines. A survey questionnaire was used to describe student-related factors, teacher-related factors, and environment-related factors while the First Quarter Grades were used to measure students’ academic performance in mathematics. Data gathered were treated statistically using frequency count, percentage, weighted mean, and multiple regression. The results showed that most of the respondents were 14 to 15 years old and were female; most of the parents were high school graduates and had a combined family monthly income of 10,000 pesos and below. The respondents had satisfactory performance. Also, teaching skills and instructional materials used by the teacher are significant predictors of academic performance in mathematics. However, the students’ interest, study habits, teacher’s personality, school environment and home environment of the students were not significant predictors of the mathematics performance of the students. It was concluded that the teacher-related factors as to teaching skills and instructional materials used can predict the academic performance of the students. The researchers recommended that the proposed intervention plan could be utilized and monitored.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Educational StudiesSame topicMathematics Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207