MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392942961 · doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00253

Utilizing Machine Learning Techniques in Predicting Job Viability of Information Technology Program Graduates

2023· article· en· W4392942961 on OpenAlexaff
Caesar Jude Clemente

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having a job immediately after graduation is the dream of every IT graduate. However, not everyone can achieve this outcome. The study's primary goal is to develop predictive models to forecast IT graduates' chances of finding a job based on factors such as academic performance, socioeconomic status, academic habits, and demographic data. Furthermore, the paper also seeks to identify the most influential predictors of the models. Ensemble machine learning algorithms such as bagging, boosting, and voting were utilized to develop the models, and an evolutionary optimization technique was used to identify the most relevant attributes. The results reflected the voting ensemble as the model achieving the highest accuracy (88.29 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">%</sup> ) followed by random forest (82.28 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">%</sup> ). The optimizer algorithm identified job placement, IT experience, degree, high school, final and last semester GPA, IT project research, study frequency, mother's educational level, sibling number, and living accommodation as the most influential predictors. Random forest also ranked first in the optimized models by garnering an 84.27 accuracy rating. The research results will greatly benefit educational institutions, school administrators, and educators by giving them a deeper insight into their job placement programs. IT graduating students can also use the research output to improve their job placement chances.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207