Design of an Internet of Things Data Collection and Computing-Based Decision Support Framework for Educational Management for Smart Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart campus relies on IoT technology to realize teaching management, location monitoring, business processing and other teaching and management activities, this paper draws on the characteristics of the development of smart campus, and builds a decision support system for educational management of smart campus by applying the conditions of IoT technology.The IoT multi-sensor is used to collect educational management data, and the Grobes criterion is applied to exclude the data with too large an error, and the consistency test is performed on the collected data.The least squares method and variance calculation are combined to process the multi-sensor data to optimize the data fusion accuracy.Comparison tests were conducted to analyze the fusion accuracy and variance of the observed data under different methods.Distribute questionnaires online and offline to analyze the feasibility of the construction of IoT in smart campus.Collate the ratings of teachers and students on the educational management decision support system of the smart campus, in which the ratings of teachers and students on the educational management decision part of the school are concentrated in the range of 0.7 to 0.8, and the overall rating of the educational management decision support system of the smart campus is 86.453 points.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".