Fuzzy Logic Decision Making Model and Risk Early Warning Mechanism in Mental Health Management of Higher Education Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a risk indicator system for mental health management of college students that takes individual developmental status, social environment, human-computer interaction, and negative emotions as the first-level indicators, and clarifies the path of obtaining mental health management monitoring data, the weights of the indicators, and the safety warning interval of mental health management.Because of the uncertainties in the mental health management of college students, fuzzy logic is introduced to deal with the uncertainties of environmental changes, student behavior and other factors in the mental health management, and to improve the level of mental health management in colleges and universities.A fuzzy logic-based risk warning model for mental health management of college students is designed.The mental health status of students is further refined by the SCL-90 scale, and the mean score level of each factor of the scale is compared with the youth norm and adult norm.Input the fuzzified student mental health data in the fuzzy logic risk early warning model, and output the risk score of the fuzzy logic model for mental health management of college students.When the set threshold is 60, the fuzzy logic risk early warning model can effectively identify the abnormal values of students' mental health, and the early warning model has practical utility.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".