Using Learning Automata to Model a Domain in a Tutorial-<i>Like</i> System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present a novel approach to model a knowledge domain for teaching material in a Tutorial-likesystem. In this approach, the Tutorial-likesystem is capable of presenting teaching material within a Socratic model of teaching. The corresponding questions are of a multiple choice type, in which the complexity of the material increases in difficulty. This enables the Tutorial-likesystem to present the teaching material in different chapters, where each chapter represents a level of difficulty that is harder than the previous one. We attempt to achieve the entire learning process using the Learning Automata (LA) paradigm. In order for the Domain model to possess an increased difficulty for the teaching Environment, we propose to correspondingly reduce therangeof the penalty probabilities of all actions by incorporating a scaling factor μ. We show that such a scaling renders it more difficult for the student to infer the correct action within the LA paradigm. To the best of our knowledge, the concept of modeling teaching material with increasing difficulty using an LA paradigm is unique. The main results we have obtained are that increasing the difficulty of the teaching material can affect the learning of Normal and Below-Normal students by resulting in an increased learning time, but it seems to have no effect on the learning behavior of Fast Students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".