| Literature DB >> 35814560 |
Nan Zheng1, Meng Sun2, Ye Yang3.
Abstract
In this paper, through data analysis of multimodal knowledge graph optimized neural network and visual analysis of college students' sports performance, we use huge graph, a graph database supporting distributed storage, to store domain knowledge in the form of the knowledge graph, use Spring Boot to build a server-side framework, use Vue framework combined with vis.js to visualize relational network graphs, and design and implement a knowledge-oriented. This paper proposes a visual analytics system based on the theory of visual analytics. Based on the idea of visual analytics, this paper presents a visual analytics framework combining predictive models. This framework combines the automated analysis capability of predictive models with interactive visualization as a new idea to explore the visual analysis of student behavior and performance changes. Using relevant predictive algorithms in machine learning, corresponding models are built to refine the importance of features for visual analysis and correlate behavioral data with achievement data. In this process, multiple prediction algorithms are used to build prediction models. The model effects are analyzed and compared to select the optimal model for use in the visual analytics framework. The graphical analytic view is integrated. EduRedar, an optical analytical system for sports data based on the performance prediction model, is designed and implemented to support multidimensional and multiangle data analysis and visualize the changes in college students' sports and performance based on accurate campus exercise data.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814560 PMCID: PMC9270164 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5398932
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Construction framework of multimodal course knowledge map.
Figure 2Multilayer perceptron.
Figure 3Visual analysis system structure diagram.
Figure 4Comparison chart of model accuracy.
Figure 5Distribution of students' actual sports performance.
Figure 6Comparison of recognition effects of three named entity recognition methods.
Comparison of recommended performance indicators for each model.
| Algorithm | NDCG | RECALL | NDCG | RECALL | NDCG | RECALL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improve | 0.3812 | 0.7833 | 0.1968 | 0.0874 | 0.6225 | 0.1218 |
| KGMRCF | 0.1934 | 0.9952 | 0.9255 | 0.4668 | 0.0024 | 0.3882 |
| KGAT | 0.2722 | 0.8166 | 0.2758 | 0.9713 | 0.9929 | 0.8275 |
| GC-MC | 0.2430 | 0.9505 | 0.1684 | 0.8261 | 0.1227 | 0.4573 |
| RIPPLENET | 0.9995 | 0.4045 | 0.7950 | 0.1971 | 0.0155 | 0.4727 |
| CFKG | 0.1312 | 0.3075 | 0.8879 | 0.0644 | 0.3158 | 0.8443 |
| CKE | 0.1958 | 0.6186 | 0.3652 | 0.8062 | 0.8976 | 0.0545 |
| NFM | 0.0416 | 0.7960 | 0.8265 | 0.4523 | 0.3221 | 0.7747 |
| FM | 0.4216 | 0.4838 | 0.8838 | 0.2773 | 0.7735 | 0.5256 |
Figure 7Visual comparison chart of sports performance.