MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393932158 · doi:10.55041/ijsrem30075

PLACEMENT PREDICTION SYSTEM USING MACHINE LEARNING

2024· article· en· W4393932158 on OpenAlexaff
Ansari Maaz Majid

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Plan (archaeology)Computer scienceWork (physics)Bridge (graph theory)Action (physics)Mathematics educationAction planMedical educationEngineeringPsychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineering students are not sure what they want to study after graduation. Students are confused by the many options offered by universities such as postgraduate admissions, and factors such as salaries and different jobs worsen the situation. There is no reliable platform that allows students to predict outcomes from the beginning of engineering and take action to bridge the gap and create a better future. Students studying in engineering faculties need to know where they stand compared to others and what kind of placement they will get. Training and workshops are available when students enter their final year, but these are not useful for students to plan their future studies. Student placement is one of the most important goals of the school. Schools work hard to accommodate students. The aim is to predict the current year's student placement by analyzing the data students have collected from previous years. Prediction of student performance is an important part of the study because today all student development is directly related to the student's success in tests and activities. Therefore, there are many situations where it is necessary to predict student performance, for example, identifying students who are not performing well and taking steps to improve them. There is no platform for girls to review their current work and highlight their strengths. . Currently, there are platforms that are not trained on real and complete data and cannot learn from error prediction, which reduces accuracy in the long run. Our goal is to create one. To ensure the results are acceptable, the model will be trained on real data and a large number of positive and negative results will be obtained. The model proposes an algorithm to estimate the model. Information is collected by the school where the prediction will be made, using the necessary information before the process or by examining the historical data of the previous year's students, and the placement of the current students is predicted and helps to improve the placement percentage of the students. institute. Keywords: task planning, task prediction, data decision making, machine learning algorithms, prediction prediction, student prediction, good study, student learning results, pre-process data, learning results.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENTSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207