MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176672739

Dysregulated Learning with Advanced Learning Technologies

2010· article· en· W2176672739 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Azevedo, Reza Feyzi-Behnagh

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionComputer sciencePremiseTask (project management)CognitionProactive learningActive learning (machine learning)Multi-task learningClass (philosophy)Self-regulated learningArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyRobot learningPsychologyNeuroscienceEngineeringMathematics education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful learning with advanced learning technologies is based on the premise that learners adaptively regulate their cognitive and metacognitive behaviors during learning. However, there is abundant empirical evidence that suggests that learners typically do not adaptively modify their behavior, thus suggesting that they engage in what is called dysregulated behavior. Dysregulated learning is a new term that is used to describe a class of behaviors that learners use that lead to minimal learning. Examples of dysregulated learning include failures to: (1) encode contextual demands, (2) deploy effective learning strategies, (3) modify and update internal standards, (4) deal with the dynamic nature of the task, (5) metacognitive monitor the use of strategies and repeatedly make accurate metacognitive judgments, and (6) intelligently adapt behavior during learning so as to maximize learning and understanding of the instructional material. Understanding behaviors associated with dysregulated learning is critical since it has implications for determining what they are, when they occur, how often they occur, and how they can be corrected during learning.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207