MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111631102 · doi:10.1109/icalt.2014.27

Adaptive Recommendations to Students Based on Working Memory Capacity

2014· article· en· W2111631102 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorking memoryPresentation (obstetrics)Mechanism (biology)CognitionAdaptive learningCognitive loadAdaptive systemHuman–computer interactionMultimediaCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An adaptive learning system is able to consider students' cognitive characteristics and then provide them with personalized content, presentation, and navigation supports. Working memory capacity (WMC) is one of the important cognitive characteristics to keep active a limited amount of information for a very brief period of time. Students might forget the important information or the learning guidelines from their limited working memory among all the information available in learning systems. Therefore, this paper proposes a mechanism to provide students with suitable and timely recommendations in learning systems based on individual student's WMC. Six types of adaptive recommendations are used to remind and suggest additional learning activities to students based on their WMC. In this mechanism, we also consider different types of objects in different situations to suit different learning scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it