What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenarios of district and county teaching research activities and lesson observation and evaluation. The materials come from three categories: teaching research activity notices, lesson observation records, and lesson evaluation minutes, and the update cadence advances with activity batches and semester milestones. Notices provide the activity theme, time, location, scope of participation, and submission requirements; lesson observation records carry classroom observations, segment records, and observation items; lesson evaluation minutes summarize review opinions, improvement suggestions, and conclusions. After the three categories of materials enter document parsing and chunking, each forms retrievable data rows, with fields covering activity name, subject, grade, instructor, observer, date, signature, and receipt, etc. Multilingual materials and terminology handling require that the same term be consistent throughout the entire text and that translated names can refer back to the original text. Therefore, parsing and chunking need to preserve the context in which the term appears, to facilitate subsequent retrieval and the organization of the comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). "Unified terminology glossary and comparison draft" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is completed, parsing and chunking immediately persist to the database as visible data rows and bind a unique data identifier. The index transitions through three states, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching research activity notice | The activity name, subject, date, scope of participation, submission requirements, and receipt fields are complete, and the activity name and date of the same activity are consistent across the two materials | Separately verify the activity name, date, signature, and receipt in the notice and the lesson observation record, and confirm that they can refer back to the original text |
| Lesson observation record | The instructor, observer, class, period, observation items, and signature fields are complete, and the quantity and date of the same record match across the two materials | Open the data row to verify the status, confirm that it is in one of parsed / indexing / indexed and is consistent with the interface display |
| Lesson evaluation minutes | The review opinions, improvement suggestions, conclusions, and signature or receipt fields are traceable, and the version is synchronized with the notice and lesson observation record | Separately verify the file record and the data row, and confirm that the identities of the file record and the data row are distinguishable from each other |
| Terminology and comparison draft | The same term is written consistently throughout the entire text, the translated name can refer back to the original text, and the chunk preserves the term context | Verify the processing results related to chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType, and sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout the entire text |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match across the two materials. Cause: The notice, lesson observation record, and lesson evaluation minutes are each organized independently, without field-level comparison.
- Phenomenon: The version is not synchronized, and the old version of the lesson evaluation minutes is still retrieved. Cause: After the materials are updated, they are not re-parsed and persisted to the database, and the index status is inconsistent with the content.
- Phenomenon: A signature or receipt is missing, and the material cannot be submitted for external release. Cause: Parsing and chunking only preserve the main text, and the signature and receipt fields are not verified together with the data row.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Upload one material and observe the status transitions of the data rows and the coverage scope of the rebuild task. The status should be parsed / indexing / indexed, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall; changing the model only rebuilds data that has already completed indexing.
Business test: Sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout the entire text, and confirm that the translated names can refer back to the original text.
- Open the data row to verify the status, confirm that it is in one of parsed / indexing / indexed and is consistent with the interface display, and observe the data rows covered by the rebuild task.
- Separately verify the file record and the data row, and confirm that the identities of the file record and the data row are distinguishable from each other; verify the processing results related to
chunkSize,chunkSplitter, andtrainingType.