Knowledge Base Retrieval for Undergraduate Program Establishment and Adjustment: Coordinate Operations and Application Handover

What this category's data looks like

Materials for undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment include program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, expert review opinions, and operation records formed during deployment, operations, and application handover. The application form provides the proposed program name, code, length of study, degree-granting category, and the signature field of the person in charge; the cultivation plan provides the course structure, credits and class hours, practical components, and study requirements; the review opinions provide the expert list, review date, conclusion, and signed receipt. When these materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, the application form fields are used to verify the program name and code, the cultivation plan fields are used to verify the course count and credits, and the review opinion fields are used to verify the date and signature. Materials are updated by academic year or adjustment batch, and the field characteristic is that the same record appears repeatedly across multiple materials, so names, quantities, dates, and signatures need to be aligned item by item.

Configuration and implementation checks

This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate snippets and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The handover-ready deployment status and operation records are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.

Three common errors

• Phenomenon: The same program name is written differently in the application form and the cultivation plan, and the dates also do not match. Cause: Material versions were not synchronized; during updating, only one copy was changed while the other remained an old draft.
• Phenomenon: The expert review opinions lack a signature or receipt, but the handover form records them as complete. Cause: The signature page was not archived together with the electronic draft, and verification only looked at the main text without checking the receipt.
• Phenomenon: The same question phrased differently cannot be recalled, and although there are many candidates, the ones ranked at the top are irrelevant. Cause: The retrieval mode does not match the material form, rerank is not enabled, or similarity filtering is too strict.

How to verify the setup

Acceptance of this function: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then turn rerank on and off to observe the ordering of the top few results; record the number of candidates and scores, and verify the actual values of similarity, limit, usingReRank, and searchMode.

Business test: check item by item once according to the handover form, see which record is missing, confirm that version, connection, and task records are consistent, then hand over to operations or the next shift.

• In the knowledge base search test, switch searchMode, use semantic, full-text, and hybrid retrieval respectively for the same field, record the number of candidates and scores, and verify the name, quantity, date, and signature of the application form, cultivation plan, and review opinions.
• Turn rerank on and off, compare the ordering of the top few results, check the tokens of the cited text after similarity filtering and limit trimming, record the array count separately, and confirm that the usingReRank state is consistent with the handover form.