Modelling and predicting student flexibility in online learning using artificial intelligence approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With flexible learning, students are actively engaged in their own education and are held to high standards of performance. Online academic courses make it easier for students to receive personalized education because they provide students with more flexibility to concentrate on what is most important to them and give them greater control over their own education. This study’s objective was to investigate whether there is a correlation between how well students succeed in online classes and the extent to which they make use of the schedule and the geographical and resource flexibility offered by such programmes. This article uses a developing approach for predicting and classifying the flexibility in online learning of students who are at risk of failing due to academic and demographic variables. The K-nearest neighbours (KNN) method, the random forest (RF) method, and the logistic regression method were used to categorise the students participating in flexible online learning. The information for the dataset came from Kaggle, and it was gathered for use in testing machine learning. The dataset had a total of 1,875 instances representing 11 different features. Also, accuracy, precision, sensitivity and f-score metrics were applied to evaluate the system. The results show that the RF algorithm has a high accuracy percentage of 85%. The empirical findings demonstrate that students formed distinct patterns of learning time, location and access to knowledge. This suggests that flexibility was used to a significant degree. Patterns in learning time and the availability of learning materials were shown to have a substantial relationship with the accomplishments of the students. Understanding flexibility use habits may help adapt lessons and boost collaboration among similar students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".