Research on students’ physical fitness evaluation based on improved K-means and decision tree algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The physical health of students is an indispensable part of the education system.Objectives: The existing methods for evaluating physical fitness and health lack sufficient analysis of test data.Methods: Therefore, the study proposed an improved student physical health evaluation algorithm using K-means and decision tree algorithms.The initial cluster center of K-means was determined using cuckoo optimization, and the median distance of data points was used instead of the mean.The minimum Gini coefficient was used as the optimal binary value for the decision tree algorithm.Results: Experiments showed that the root mean square error of each item in the improved K-means algorithm was on average 0.056 lower than that of the fuzzy C-means algorithm.The recall rate and F1 value were on average 0.084 and 0.093 higher, respectively.The accuracy of clustering analysis was 3.3% and 5.1% higher than that of the FC-MC algorithm and SC algorithm, respectively.The decision tree algorithm approached convergence after 200 iterations, with the maximum values being 1.4%, 6.3%, and 13.5% higher than other algorithms.In the randomly selected class, the contribution of male students' sitting forward bending, long-distance running, and pull-up projects to the total score was relatively low and need to be prioritized for improvement.Conclusion: From this, the proposed physical health evaluation method can effectively minimize the impact of extreme value data on the calculation outcomes, raise the accuracy of clustering analysis and evaluation, and accurately determine the overall and individual physical weakness items of the class.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".