Pemodelan K-Nearest Neighbor Untuk Identifikasi Pola Kepuasan Mahasiswa Terhadap Pelayanan Kampus (Studi Kasus : STMIK Kaputama)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on using the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithm to model student satisfaction with campus services. The study finds that the quality of the dataset strongly influences the accuracy of the KNN classification results. Factors such as data cleanliness, balanced class distribution, and sufficient training data volume are highlighted as crucial for a successful model. The research also emphasizes the significance of proper feature selection in enhancing classification performance, suggesting that irrelevant features can introduce noise and decrease model accuracy. The model was evaluated using a dataset of 1032 data points and K=5, achieving an accuracy of 93.72%. While the model performed well for certain classes such as "Very Good" and "None", challenges were encountered in classifying the "Fair" and "Deficient" classes. The study concludes that KNN is effective in identifying student satisfaction patterns but highlights the need for improvements in accurately classifying these challenging classes. Ultimately, the research underscores the importance of data quality and feature selection in enhancing the performance of classification models for student satisfaction analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".