Constructing a big data modular evaluation system for college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship education in universities: enhancing evaluation efficiency and accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the evaluation system of college students' innovation and entrepreneurship education is constructed and the indexes are assigned by combining the hierarchical analysis method.After that, PSO algorithm is introduced in the optimization of weights and thresholds of BP neural network, the neural network model using particle swarm optimization (PSO-BP) is constructed, and the process of PSO algorithm optimization of BP neural network is described.It was found that the combined weight of five indicators, namely, "examination results of innovation and entrepreneurship courses, entrepreneurial experience, participation in centralized entrepreneurship training camps, obtaining financial support from entrepreneurship funds, and participation in innovation or entrepreneurship clubs", accounted for more than 10%, while the combined weight coefficients of the rest of the indicators were all below 0.1.Compared to the BP model, the PSO-BP model has better network performance and its training samples have higher correlation with the test samples.In addition, the PSO-BP model can be used for predicting data prediction after 9 iterations of training, and the maximum relative error between the actual value and the expected value of the model network test output is very small (<1.4272%), which makes the model ideal.After PSO optimization PSO-BP model has almost no prediction error (<0.34%), which can improve the evaluation efficiency and accuracy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".