Comprehensive Evaluations of Student Performance Estimation via Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Success in student learning is the primary aim of the educational system. Artificial intelligence utilizes data and machine learning to achieve excellence in student learning. In this paper, we exploit several machine learning techniques to estimate early student performance. Two main simulations are used for the evaluation. The first simulation used the Traditional Machine Learning Classifiers (TMLCs) applied to the House dataset, and they are Gaussian Naïve Bayes (GNB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Random Forest (RF), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), and Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA). The best results were achieved with the MLP classifier with a division of 80% training and 20% testing, with an accuracy of 88.89%. The fusion of these seven classifiers was also applied and the highest result was equal to the MLP. Moreover, in the second simulation, the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) was utilized and evaluated on five main datasets, namely, House, Western Ontario University (WOU), Experience Application Programming Interface (XAPI), University of California-Irvine (UCI), and Analytics Vidhya (AV). The UCI dataset was subdivided into three datasets, namely, UCI-Math, UCI-Por, and UCI-Fused. Moreover, the AV dataset has three targets which are Math, Reading, and Writing. The best accuracy results were achieved at 97.5%, 99.55%, 98.57%, 99.28%, 99.40%, 99.67%, 92.93%, 96.99%, and 96.84% for the House, WOU, XAPI, UCI-Math, UCI-Por, UCI-Fused, AV-Math, AV-Reading, and AV-Writing datasets, respectively, under the same protocol of evaluation. The system demonstrates that the proposed CNN-based method surpasses all seven conventional methods and other state-of-the-art-work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".