Exploration and Research on Improving Logical Reasoning Skills in Teaching Artificial Intelligence Driver Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the influencing factors of logical reasoning ability can not only help teachers to find out the effective way to cultivate students' logical reasoning ability, but also provide methodological and theoretical references for the relevant research in the area of artificial intelligence-driven program design education, which is of certain research value.The article firstly introduces the theory of structural equation modeling and the principle of algorithm used in model analysis.Then, taking the students of School S and School T as an example, we designed and distributed relevant collection questionnaires, and analyzed the data using SPSS to understand the overall status of students' logical reasoning ability and the level of each dimension.Then we make reasonable assumptions about the factors affecting students' logical reasoning ability, establish a structural equation model of the factors affecting logical reasoning ability, and analyze the effects and paths between the factors and on the logical reasoning ability.Finally, according to the experimental results, we propose targeted teaching reform methods.The results of the study show that: teacher's activities, learning interest, learning attitude, classroom environment have a positive effect on students' logical reasoning ability, in which the effect of classroom environment on logical reasoning ability is 0.48.Enhancing the teacher's power and promoting the diversified development of students is an effective way to improve logical reasoning ability.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".