What this category's data looks like
In the scenario of district and county teaching research activities and lesson observation and evaluation, materials are mainly divided into three categories: teaching research activity notices, lesson observation records, and lesson evaluation minutes. Notices carry the activity theme, time, location, participation scope, and approval column; lesson observation records carry the instructor, class, subject, observation points, and observer signature; lesson evaluation minutes carry discussion conclusions, improvement suggestions, responsible persons, and receipts. When these three categories of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, each has a different role: notices are retrieved as the basis for the activity, lesson observation records are retrieved as process traces, and lesson evaluation minutes are retrieved as conclusions and handover evidence. Material sources are mostly drafted by departments, submitted by schools, and summarized by teaching researchers. The update rhythm advances according to the activity cycle, and it is common for the name, quantity, and date of the same record to fail to match across two materials, for versions not to be synchronized, and for signatures or receipts to be missing. Field characteristics are concentrated in dates, signatures, version numbers, responsible persons, and receipt status. During retrieval, these key fragments need to be retained for subsequent drafting and handover verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). Material drafts that can be issued and handover records are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching research activity notice | The theme, time, location, participation scope, and approval column are complete, and the dates are consistent with the lesson observation records and lesson evaluation minutes | In the knowledge base search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, compare candidate fragments and scores, and check whether the date and signature fields in the notice are recalled |
| Lesson observation record | The instructor, class, subject, observation points, and observer signature are complete, and the names and quantities match the notice and lesson evaluation minutes | Test once each with synonymous rewritten questions, enable usingReRank to compare the ranking of the top few items, and check whether the signature and version fields in the lesson observation record are retained |
| Lesson evaluation minutes | The discussion conclusions, improvement suggestions, responsible persons, and receipt status are complete, and the version and date are synchronized with the notice and lesson observation record | Adjust similarity to observe changes in the number of candidate items and scores, separately record the number of items in the citation array, and check whether the tokens of the cited text retain the responsible person, receipt, and version fields |
| Handover record | The responsible person is clear, the version and date are consistent, and there are no missing signatures or receipts | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover, see whether missing items are blocked; check whether the candidate fragments contain the receipt information from the previous step |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record fail to match between the notice and the lesson evaluation minutes. Cause: During drafting, the knowledge base candidate fragments were not checked back, and the version was not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: The lesson observation record lacks a signature or receipt and is returned by the next step during handover. Cause: The retrieval candidates did not retain the signature column and receipt status, and items were omitted during manual drafting.
- Phenomenon: When the same question is phrased differently, the key passage cannot be recalled, and the answer lacks the responsible person. Cause: The retrieval mode does not match the material form, and after similarity filtering and citation upper-limit trimming, the key fragments of the original text were not retained.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: test once each with synonymous rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank on and off to see the ranking of the top few items; switch searchMode, adjust similarity, enable usingReRank, record the number of candidate items and scores, record the number of citations separately by array length, and check the tokens of the cited text against the citation upper limit.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover, see whether missing items are blocked.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch
searchMode, compare the candidate fragments and scores of the semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes, and confirm that the date and signature fields of the notice, lesson observation record, and lesson evaluation minutes are recalled. - Enable
usingReRankto compare the ranking of the top few items, adjustsimilarityto observe changes in the number of candidate items and scores, separately record the number of items in the citation array and check the tokens of the cited text, and confirm that the responsible person, receipt, and version fields are retained.