On the Pedagogically Guided Paper Recommendation for an Evolving Web-Based Learning System.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the mechanism of a recommender system recommending papers for an evolving web-based learning system. Our system is unique in three aspects. The first is that our learning environment can evolve based on the system’s observance of learners and their behaviors. Therefore, the fittest papers will survive the natural selections by learners: papers liked by learners will survive. The second is that we introduce a pedagogically layered similarity between items that have been read by learners and candidate items for recommendation, which is different and desirable, since we argue that papers that match a learner’s interest might not be pedagogically suitable for him/her. The third significance is that we propose to annotate each paper with temporal sequences of learners ’ learning behaviors. By doing it, we can maintain the objectivity as well as integrity of the papers. In addition the accumulated sequences of learners can play a key role for a deeper understanding of their knowledge levels/states, which, in turn, provide ‘just-in-time ’ recommendations to support and encourage e-learning.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".