The Construction of Educational Management Performance Evaluation System Based on the Hierarchical Analysis Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of performance evaluation in the educational management of colleges and universities is conducive to the formation of result-oriented concepts and management methods of student educational management.In this paper, we select the indicators of educational management conditions, processes and results to design the performance evaluation index system of educational management.Using the hierarchical analysis method, the eigenvectors and maximum eigenvalues are calculated to determine the weights of each index element of the index system.Then apply the gray correlation method to evaluate the educational management performance of the five universities by calculating, one by one, the absolute difference between each indicator sequence (comparative sequence) and the corresponding element of the reference sequence of the object to be evaluated after the data are dimensionless.The analysis found that, according to the formula for calculating the degree of correlation between the actual level of educational management performance and the ideal educational management performance situation, the comprehensive correlation degree of each sample of colleges and universities in the five stages is Z = (0.3333, 0.3951, 0.4600, 0.5031, 0.5946, 1.0000), and the rankings of colleges and universities in terms of the performance of educational management from the highest to the lowest are Academy 4, Academy 2, Academy 5, Academy 3, Academy 1. HEI 3 and HEI 1 should reflect on the shortcomings, enhance the digital construction of teaching informationization, deepen the collaboration between schools and enterprises, and improve the performance of educational management of colleges and universities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".