MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415359987 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v5i1.1490

Grouping of Student Learning Interest Indicators using the Clustering Method (Case Study: MA. Al – Asy'ariah Sunggal)

2025· article· W4415359987 on OpenAlexaff
C. I. Armaya, Akim Manaor Hara Pardede, Juliana Naftali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisClass (philosophy)Active learning (machine learning)Process (computing)Data collectionCluster groupingCluster (spacecraft)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student learning interest is an important factor in achieving educational outcomes, as it is directly related to their involvement in the learning process. However, in reality, each student has a different character and learning style, often making it difficult for teachers to determine effective and appropriate learning strategies. Therefore, an approach that can objectively identify patterns of student learning interest is needed. This study aims to group students based on three main indicators of learning interest: class activity, academic grades, and involvement in extracurricular activities. The method used is K-Means Clustering, which is a data mining technique for grouping data based on similar characteristics between objects. This research process began with data collection of 508 students of MA Al- Asy'ariah Sunggal in the 2024 academic year, then the data was transformed into numeric form. Next, the K-Means algorithm was implemented using MATLAB R2014b software. The analysis results show that students can be divided into three main clusters, each with different learning interest characteristics. The first cluster consists of students who are less active and do not participate in extracurricular activities, the second cluster contains students with high academic grades but minimal classroom engagement, and the third cluster reflects students who are active both academically and non-academically. These results provide a concrete picture for schools in developing more targeted learning strategies, based on the needs and potential of students in each group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207