Predicting Learner Answers Correctness through Brainwaves Assesment and Emotional Dimensions
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
We want to explore the relation between affective states, brainwaves and the learner answers during a multi-choice test questions. 24 participants were used in our experiment. While we were measuring their brainwaves, we asked them to answer 35 questions related to the 7 texts they read, for the first time, the day before. During the experiment, the participants can rate, at any time, their emotional dimensions (pleasure, arousal and dominance) on the Self-Assessment Manikin scale (SAM). Measuring the brainwaves determines the learner mental state and the emotional dimensions indicate the learner affective state. When a participant answers, he mentions if he knows the answer or not. Each answer can be either Right or False. The hypothesis of this paper is: “We can predict the learner's answers from his emotional dimensions and his brainwaves”. By using some machine learning techniques, we reached 90.49% accuracy. In a future work, these results will be implemented in an agent to improve the pedagogical strategies and the adaptation of the content within an Intelligent Tutoring System (STI).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it