| Literature DB >> 36148403 |
Abstract
Ideological and political education (IPE) is aimed at achieving people's free and all-around growth through the use of appropriate methods, and the use of educational methods is integral to the execution of education. Under the influence of big data, it is imperative to strengthen the research on the accuracy of ideology education in colleges and universities (IPECU), which necessitates that ideology educators adopt big data thinking, investigate novel pedagogical approaches, and consistently develop new IPECU conditions. In this paper, a collaborative filtering- (CF-) based algorithm for IPE resource recommendations is presented. Users are given recommendations for educational resources based on their browsing history, browsing patterns, and preferences. The accurate recommendation system can determine users' needs by examining how they use the website in order to suggest more useful information to them. In comparison to the conventional algorithm, the accuracy of the ideological and political education precision recommendation model in this study is 16.75% greater. Teachers can use big data technology to gather students' data information that is dispersed throughout cyberspace, understand students' states in real time, and deliver accurate instructional materials in accordance with students' various states and needs by utilizing the intelligent ideology mode.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36148403 PMCID: PMC9489377 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2394668
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1Precise recommendation process.
Figure 2Recommendation method of instructional resources for IPE.
Figure 3User subjective rating.
Figure 4Performance comparison between algorithms with different sparsity.
Model accuracy with different iterations.
| Iterations | Accuracy rate |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 32.6%-67.5% |
| 4000 | 43.4%-71.8% |
| 6000 | 61.2%-73.5% |
| 8000 | 71.4%-85.6% |
| 10000 | 80.3%-92.3% |
| 12000 | 81.2%-93.6% |
Figure 5Mean absolute error results of different algorithms.
Figure 6Recall results of different algorithms.
Experimental results of filtering evaluation indicators.
| Model | Average precision | Average recall |
|---|---|---|
| Weighted association rules | 88.35% | 90.41% |
| Literature [ | 83.14% | 85.31% |
| Paper recommends model | 94.25% | 95.18% |
Figure 7Recommendation accuracy results of different models.