ArticleComputational intelligence and neuroscience2022
Machine Learning-Based Intelligent Scoring of College English Teaching in the Field of Natural Language Processing.
Article in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current education evaluation is limited not only to the mode of simplification, indexing, and datafication, but also to the scientific nature of college teaching evaluation. This work firstly conducts a theoretical analysis of natural language processing technology, analyzes the related technologies of intelligent scoring, designs a systematic process for intelligent scoring of college English teaching, and finally conducts theoretical research on the Naive Bayesian algorithm in machine learning. In addition, the error of intelligent scoring of English teaching in colleges and universities and the accuracy of scoring and classification are analyzed and researched. The results show that the error between manual scoring and machine scoring is basically about 2 points and the minimum error of intelligent scoring in college English teaching under machine scoring can reach 0 points. There is a certain bias in manual scoring, and scoring on the machine can reduce the generation of this error. The Naive Bayes algorithm has the highest classification accuracy on the college intelligent scoring dataset, which is 76.43%. The weighted Naive Bayes algorithm has been improved in the classification accuracy of college English teaching intelligent scoring, with an average accuracy rate of 74.87%. To sum up, the weighted Naive Bayes algorithm has better performance in the classification accuracy of college English intelligent scoring. This work has a significant effect on the scoring of the college intelligent teaching scoring system under natural language processing and the classification of college teaching intelligence scoring under the Naive Bayes algorithm, which can improve the efficiency of college teaching scoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.