Data Mining of Students’ Performance: Turkish Students as a Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial neural networks have been used in different fields of artificial intelligence, and more specifically in machine learning. Although, other machine learning options are feasible in most situations, but the ease with which neural networks lend themselves to different problems which include pattern recognition, image compression, classification, computer vision, regression etc. has earned it a remarkable place in the machine learning field. This research exploits neural networks as a data mining tool in predicting the number of times a student repeats a course, considering some attributes relating to the course itself, the teacher, and the particular student. Neural networks were used in this work to map the relationship between some attributes related to students' course assessment and the number of times a student will possibly repeat a course before he passes. It is the hope that the possibility to predict students' performance from such complex relationships can help facilitate the fine-tuning of academic systems and policies implemented in learning environments. To validate the power of neural networks in data mining, Turkish students' performance database has been used; feedforward and radial basis function networks were trained for this task. The performances obtained from these networks were evaluated in consideration of achieved recognition rates and training time.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".