ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of attitudes of university students towards artificial intelligence using data mining methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This study analyzes university students' attitudes towards artificial intelligence. Within the scope of the research, the data obtained from 1379 students through scale application were classified into three classes as "Insufficient", "Sufficient" and "Strongly Sufficient" according to their attitudes towards artificial intelligence. The data was classified by data mining methods. For this purpose, MLP, Decision Tree, KNN, XGBoost, Random Forest, CatBoost and SVM algorithms were used. The performance of the model was evaluated with a 5-fold cross-validation method. For each algorithm, basic metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall and F1 score were calculated and the classification performance was compared. According to the results, the highest F1-Score accuracy rate was 95.52% for the SVM algorithm. This was followed by CatBoost (93.66%), Random Forest (92.56%) and XGBoost (92.36%). The lowest success rates were observed in MLP (81.87%) and Decision Tree (82.72%) models. Confusion matrices revealed a tendency for frequent confusion with other classes, especially in the Strongly Sufficient class. The study concluded that advanced classification algorithms provide powerful and reliable tools for analyzing students' attitudes towards artificial intelligence. These findings may contribute to the development of educational policies and strategies for AI literacy.
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.