What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of formulating talent cultivation plans in vocational colleges. The materials include three categories: talent cultivation plans, course standards, and job competency analysis tables. Talent cultivation plans come from the academic affairs management department and are updated by academic year or revision cycle; their fields include major name, number of courses, credit hours and credits, formulation date, and signature column. Course standards come from the teaching and research offices of each major and are updated as courses are adjusted; their fields include course name, class hours, assessment method, and drafter's signature. Job competency analysis tables come from industry research or enterprise feedback and are updated by research batch; their fields include job name, competency items, research date, and receipt. When these three categories of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, they serve respectively as sources of candidate segments for subsequent nodes or manual comparison of fields, dates, and signatures, forming an anomaly list and review conclusions.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate segments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, re-rank, filter, and limit trimming). The "anomaly list and review conclusions" are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Talent cultivation plan | Compare with course standards and job competency analysis tables: whether the major name, number of courses, credit hours and credits, formulation date, and signature column are consistent | In the knowledge base search test, search the major name and number of courses, record the number of candidates and scores, and check the dates and signatures in the original text segments |
| Course standard | Compare with the talent cultivation plan: whether the course name, class hours, assessment method, and drafter's signature are consistent | Switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, compare candidate segments, and check the class hours and signatures in the original course standard text |
| Job competency analysis table | Compare with the talent cultivation plan and course standards: whether the job name, competency items, research date, and receipt are consistent | Turn usingReRank on or off, observe changes in the ranking of the top few candidates, and check the receipt and research date |
| Retrieval returned candidates | Whether the candidate segments and similarity scores cover the fields referred to by the anomaly | Record the number of candidates, and check whether the cited text after similarity and limit are applied retains the key fields |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the name or class hours of the same course do not match between two materials. Cause: after the course standard was revised, it was not synchronized to the talent cultivation plan; the versions are not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: the research date of the job competency analysis table contradicts the formulation date of the plan. Cause: the two materials have different update rhythms, and the date fields were not checked uniformly.
- Phenomenon: the review conclusion lacks a signature or receipt. Cause: the anomaly list was not accompanied by the original records, and the signature column and receipt were not archived together with the materials.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidate segments and similarity scores, then toggle re-ranking on and off to see the ranking of the top few; at the same time switch searchMode, record the number of candidates, and check the cited text after similarity, limit, and usingReRank are applied.
Business test: create an anomaly record, see whether the source material can be traced, and check the fields, dates, and signatures in the talent cultivation plan, course standards, and job competency analysis table.
- In the knowledge base search test, search the same anomalous field with different phrasings, record the number of candidates and scores, and check whether the cited text retains the original fields.
- Search once before and once after enabling re-ranking, compare the order of the top few candidates, and confirm whether the record referred to by the anomaly can be recalled stably.