Clustering of Student Expertise Fields Using the K-Means Algorithm (Case Study: STMIK Kaputama Binjai)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grouping students' fields of expertise in higher education is an important issue that can provide significant benefits for students and educational institutions. STMIK Kaputama is one of the universities that has students with various fields of expertise, but the absence of data that informs the field of expertise of students is very unfortunate. Research data was obtained through questionnaires distributed to students, which included information about study programs, Grade Point Average (GPA), and areas of expertise. Clustering analysis was conducted using Matlab software to validate and implement the clustering results. The results show that the K-Means algorithm is effective in grouping students into clusters that have similar characteristics. The first cluster consists of students with expertise in programming and database, the second cluster focuses on students with networking expertise, and the third cluster includes students with various combinations of expertise.This study also found a tendency that students with certain expertise have a higher GPA than students with other expertise.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it