Construction and Practice of Higher Education Quality Assurance System Based on Artificial Intelligence Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More and more problems are revealed in the process of popularization of higher education, especially the imperfection of the quality assurance system of higher education, which restricts and hinders the development of colleges and universities to a certain extent. This paper uses structural equation modeling to analyze the influencing factors of higher education quality. And consequently, it combines digital technology to build a higher education quality assurance system. Take a university as an example to practice, through the higher education quality assurance system evaluation index selection and empowerment, combined with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to establish an evaluation model, to assess the effectiveness of the practice of the educational quality assurance system of the sample university. The management level (0.4380) and faculty (0.1472) of the university have the most significant influence on the quality of higher education. Under the constructed higher education quality assurance system, the comprehensive scoring result of the sample colleges and universities is at a good level (8.227), with the highest quality level in the dimensions of teaching effectiveness (8.7341) and student development (8.7000), which indicates that the digitization-based higher education assurance system is able to effectively ensure and promote the quality of education in colleges and universities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".