MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409576533 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-110

Research on the Construction of Labor Education Curriculum Model Based on Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm under Fuzzy Cognitive Orientation

2025· article· en· W4409576533 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qian Wang, X. Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy cognitive mapOrientation (vector space)CurriculumCognitionFuzzy logicComputer scienceOptimization algorithmArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPsychologyMachine learningMathematical optimizationMathematicsFuzzy setFuzzy numberPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimization problems usually involve multiple objectives, while fuzzy cognitive maps can effectively show the causal relationship between concepts, and the combination of the two can greatly advance the development of the education field. In this paper, we design a fuzzy cognition-based knowledge map for labor education courses and a multi-objective optimization model for labor education courses to optimize learners’ learning paths and recommend personalized exercises from multiple stages. Through teaching experiments and regression analysis, the teaching effect of the multi-objective optimization algorithm in labor education courses is evaluated. This paper borrows the k-means algorithm to classify learners into four clusters, and the algorithm provides learning path optimization for different clusters of learners in labor education courses. The exercise recommendation accuracy of this paper’s algorithm ranges from 0.91 to 0.97 and has better novelty and diversity recommendation performance. In the experimental class in the fuzzy cognitively oriented multi-objective optimization labor course, the learners’ labor scores improve faster and are about 3.8 points higher than those of the traditional teaching, and the regression results show that this paper’s model has a positive and positive effect on the teaching effect. The average satisfaction scores of this paper’s model in labor education courses for the friendliness of teaching aid, effectiveness of cognitive diagnosis method, usefulness of path optimization, and reasonableness of personalized recommendation of exercises are above 4.3, indicating that the model has practical application value in labor education courses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207