MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409791158 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-443

A Bayesian inference-based model for evaluating the effect of ecological education in the process of study tour activities in national parks

2025· article· en· W4409791158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
KeywordsBayesian inferenceInferenceProcess (computing)Bayesian probabilityComputer scienceEcologyMachine learningManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the development of study activities is in full swing.In order to study the eco-education effect in national park study activities, this paper introduces Bayesian network and constructs an ecoeducation effect assessment model based on Bayesian inference.In the comparison of the absolute error of the assessment value with other assessment models, the assessment accuracy of the Bayesian inference assessment model in this paper is obtained.After constructing the ecological education effect assessment index system and completing the assignment, the level of ecological education that should be achieved in the national park study activities is obtained through Bayesian inference diagnosis.Finally, according to the results of education effect assessment, the probability of each indicator being in various states is obtained by simulation using Monte Carlo method.The mean absolute error of the Bayesian assessment model is 0.26 points, which is smaller than other comparative assessment models and has the highest assessment accuracy.The model's ecosystem principles, anthropogenic intervention impacts, ecological disasters and ecological protection measures should be guaranteed to reach 75.6, 64.8, 67.9 and 69.4.The ecological operation rules (59.4→79.8),climate change (50.6→70.2),biodiversity reduction (52.2→69.8),and pollution prevention and control (56.4→78.3)have the highest accuracy for the ecosystem principle, anthropogenic intervention impacts, ecological disasters and ecological protection measures, respectively., anthropogenic intervention effects, ecological disasters and ecological conservation measures, and ecological education effects had the greatest impact.The overall score of ecological education effect was 84.1, and the scores of ecosystem principle, human intervention impact, ecological disaster and ecological protection measures were 83.8, 85.2, 83.0 and 84.2.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicDiverse Topics in Contemporary ResearchFrench-language works237,207