MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410241868 · doi:10.18280/mmep.120424

Document Recognition in Education Sector Using Machine Learning Algorithms

2025· article· en· W4410241868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarala Murugesan, Muralidhara Benakanahally Lakshminarasaiah, Suresh Ramaiah, Rajesh Balarama

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) is a widespread technique in classification tasks, fraud detection, time series analysis, and many such challenging problems.One such problem in the education sector is recognizing the different types of educational credentials to verify the genuineness of such credentials.We have not found any research work to identify educational documents using ML.The objective of this work is to recognize the educational credentials across multiple categories to avoid manual processes.This novel study recognizes credentials from large datasets into five categories: Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS), Computerized, Handwritten, Non-CBCS, and Degree Certificate.The two statistical feature extraction methods, namely Gray Level Cooccurrence Matrix (GLCM), and Gray Level Histogram Analysis (GLHA) were used to extract the features from these credentials, and we stored them in the database.These features were trained using six supervised classifier algorithms including Naï ve Bayes (NB), Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR), Decision Tree (DT), K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF) to recognize the credentials.We analyzed the performances of these algorithms as follows: (i) the impact of hyper-parameters on each algorithm, (ii) the performance of two feature extraction methods, and (iii) the recommendation of classifiers based on accuracy.SVM yielded good results using the GLCM feature extraction method among the above-mentioned algorithms, attaining a high accuracy of 98.4%.This approach can also recognize documents like employment agreements, contracts agreements, financial statements, etc., in business, and industry sectors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207