Ontology-Based Automatic Annotation of Learning Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an ontology-based approach to automatic annotation of learning objects’ (LOs) content units that we tested in TANGRAM, an integrated learning environment for the domain of Intelligent Information Systems. The approach does not primarily focus on automatic annotation of entire LOs, as other relevant solutions do. Instead, it provides a solution for automatic metadata generation for LOs’ components (i.e., smaller, potentially reusable, content units). Here we mainly report on the content-mining algorithms and heuristics applied for determining values of certain metadata elements used to annotate content units. Specifically, the focus is on the following elements: title, description, unique identifier, subject (based on a domain ontology), and pedagogical role (based on an ontology of pedagogical roles). Additionally, as TANGRAM is grounded on an LO content structure ontology that drives the process of an LO decomposition into its constituent content units, each thus generated content unit is implicitly semantically annotated with its role/position in the LO’s structure. Employing such semantic annotations, TANGRAM allows assembling content units into new LOs personalized to the users’ goals, preferences, and learning styles. In order to provide the evaluation of the proposed solution, we describe our experiences with automatic annotation of slide presentations, one of the most common LO types.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".