MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787557 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-394

Fuzzy logic-based multilevel assessment model for education quality with dynamic learning planning approach

2025· article· en· W4409787557 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Dynamic assessmentArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to solve the problem of vagueness and uncertainty, which is difficult to deal with in traditional education assessment, this paper introduces the theory of fuzzy matrix logic, and constructs a multilevel assessment model of education quality by means of the affiliation function and multilevel weight allocation.Through fuzzy reasoning and cognitive estimation techniques, combined with knowledge graph visualization, the cognitive level of learners is accurately estimated to achieve personalized learning resource recommendation.The quality assessment of physical education teaching in colleges and universities is taken as an example to verify the application value of the model.The constructed PE teaching quality evaluation index system contains 3 level 1 indicators, 11 level 2 indicators, and 38 level 3 indicators.The initial index scoring result of the PE classroom by 5 raters is an average score of 100.8, which is 89.2 points different from the full average score.The weights of the indicators within the 3 levels do not differ much.Students' levels of knowledge of the 6 initial physical education concepts ranged from 0.53 to 0.86 points.The maximum inter-conceptual influence strength was 0.86 and the minimum was 0.18.After the interference of the resource recommendation, the cognitive level increased to between 0.67-0.98points.The maximum inter-conceptual influence intensity reaches 1.The Sig value is greater than 0.05, and the results of the model calculations have reliability and can be used for education quality assessment and dynamic learning planning method improvement.

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.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.330 · 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