PLORS: a personalized learning object recommender system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning management systems (LMS) are typically used by large educational institutions and focus on supporting instructors in managing and administrating online courses. However, such LMS typically use a “one size fits all” approach without considering individual learner’s profile. A learner’s profile can, for example, consists of his/her learning styles, goals, prior knowledge, abilities, and interests. Generally, LMSs do not cater individual learners’ needs based on their profile. However, considering learners’ profiles can help in enhancing the learning experiences and performance of learners within the course. To support personalization in LMS, recommender systems can be used to recommend appropriate learning objects to learners to increase their learning. In this paper, we introduce the personalized learning object recommender system. The proposed system supports learners by providing them recommendations about which learning objects within the course are more useful for them, considering the learning object they are visiting as well as the learning objects visited by other learners with similar profiles. This kind of personalization can help in improving the overall quality of learning by providing recommendations of learning objects that are useful but were overlooked or intentionally skipped by learners. Such recommendations can increase learners’ performance and satisfaction during the course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it