Fuzzy logic-based multilevel assessment model for education quality with dynamic learning planning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".