Design of an intelligent evaluation model for university physical education teaching management based on a feature-fusion attention mechanism


Abstract

This study proposes an intelligent evaluation model for university physical education teaching management based on a feature-fusion attention mechanism, aiming to enhance evaluation accuracy and computational efficiency. A perception-enhancement module is first constructed by integrating a shifted-window attention mechanism with a cross-stage partial feature-aggregation module. The hierarchical design, incorporating layer normalization, window multi-head self-attention, and shifted-window multi-head self-attention, strengthens global feature perception. A context-guided feature-fusion network is then developed to adaptively integrate local and regional features, with channel attention used to optimize fused representations. Finally, a CNN-Transformer cooperative architecture embeds shifted-window attention into convolutional layers, preserving convolutional advantages for local feature extraction while improving global modeling. Experiments on UCF101 and Sports-1M show that the proposed model achieves superior precision, recall, F1-score, and mean Average Precision (mAP) compared with baseline methods. On UCF101, precision and F1-score reach 0.768 and 0.683, respectively, while on Sports-1M they reach 0.711 and 0.628, respectively. The model contains only 12.6M parameters, achieving competitive accuracy while reducing computational complexity.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].