4.6 Article

Predicting Determinants of Lifelong Learning Intention Using Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) with Grid Search

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14095256

关键词

lifelong learning intention; machine learning; gradient boosting machine (GBM); grid search

资金

  1. Pukyong National University Research Fund [CD20210841]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to identify the key factors that influence the actual learning intention leading to participation in adult education. Using longitudinal big data from Korean adults (2017-2020), a predictive model was developed using tree-based machine learning. The results revealed that self-pay education expenses and the highest level of education completed were the most influential variables in predicting the likelihood of lifelong education participation. After grid search, the importance of these variables as well as overall figures, including the false positive rate, improved. Future studies could further enhance the performance of the machine learning model by adjusting hyperparameters using less computational methods.
The purpose of this study is to explore the factors that have the most decisive influence on actual learning intention that leads to participation in adult education. For developing the predictive model, we used tree-based machine learning, with the longitudinal big data (2017-2020) of Korean adults. Based on the gradient boosting machine (GBM) results, among the eleven variables used, the most influential variables in predicting the possibility of lifelong education participation were self-pay education expenses and then highest level of education completed. After the grid search, not only the importance of the two variables but also the overall figures including the false positive rate improved. In future studies, it will be possible to improve the performance of the machine learning model by adjusting the hyper-parameters that can be directly set by less computational methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据