A Study on Identification and Quantification Strategies of Realistic Dilemmas of Art Education Development in Colleges and Universities Based on Decision Tree Analysis Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, art education in colleges and universities has been more and more emphasized by the state and education departments, and has been comprehensively promoted and developed.The study builds the evaluation index system of art education development and assesses the development of art education in a university in order to identify its realistic dilemma.On this basis, the dung beetle algorithm is used to optimize the random forest algorithm to construct a decision tree assessment model of art education development.Through comparison experiments, the prediction accuracy and stability of the DBO-RF model are confirmed, and the deviation of its assessment results from the real value is below 4%, and the RMSE (12.247),MAE (9.133), and MSE (178.829) are lower than that of the comparison method, and the EV (0.721) and R² (0.719) are higher than that of the comparison method, which is applicable to a certain extent.The long-term and overall development of art education in colleges and universities can be promoted by establishing art education mechanisms, strengthening art practice activities, establishing resource sharing channels and developing scientific systems.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".