Using learning automata to model the behavior of a teacher in a tutorial-like system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to present a novel approach to model the behavior of a Teacher in a Tutorial-like system. In this model, the Teacher is capable of presenting teaching material from a Socratic-type Domain model via multiple-choice questions. Since this knowledge is stored in the Domain model in chapters with different levels of complexity, the Teacher is able to present learning material of varying degrees of difficulty to the Students. In our model, we propose that the Teacher will be able to assist the Students to learn the more difficult material. In order to achieve this, he provides them with hints that are relative to the difficulty of the learning material presented. This enables the Students to cope with the process of handling more complex knowledge, and to be able to learn it appropriately. To our knowledge, the findings of this study are novel in the field of LA. The novelty lies in the fact that the learning system has a strategy by which it can deal with increasingly more complex/difficult Environments. In our approach, the convergence of the LA (Students) is driven not only by the response of the Environment (Teacher), but also by the hints that are provided by the latter. Our proposed Teacher model has been tested against different benchmark Environments, and the results of these simulations have demonstrated the salient aspects of our model. The main conclusion is that Normal and Below-Normal learners benefited significantly from the hints provided by the Teacher, while the benefits to (brilliant) Fast learners were marginal. This seems to be in-line with our subjective understanding of the behavior of real-life 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".