Utilizing Machine Learning Techniques in Predicting Job Viability of Information Technology Program Graduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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%) followed by random forest (82.28%). 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".