An Ontology-Based Framework for Bridging Learning Design and Learning Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes an ontology-based framework for bridging learning design and learning object content. In present solutions, researchers have proposed conceptual models and developed tools for both of those subjects, but without detailed discussions of how they can be used together. In this paper we advocate the use of ontologies to explicitly specify all learning designs, learning objects, and the relations between them, and show how this use of ontologies can result in more effective (semi-)automatic tools and services that increase the level of reusability. We first define a three-part conceptual model that introduces an intermediate level between learning design and learning objects called the learning object context. We then use ontologies to facilitate the representation of these concepts: LOCO is a new ontology based on IMS-LD, ALOCoM is an existing ontology for learning objects, and LOCO-Cite is a new ontology for the learning object contextual model. We conclude by showing the applicability of the proposed framework in a use case study.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".