Exploring the Effects of Errors in Assessment and Time Requirements of Learning Objects in a Peer-Based Intelligent Tutoring System
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit a framework for designing peer-based intelligent tutoring systems motivated by McCalla's ecological approach, where learning is facilitated by the previous experiences of peers with a corpus of learning objects. Prior research demonstrated the value of a proposed algorithm for modeling student learning and for selecting the most beneficial learning objects to present to new students. In this paper, we first adjust the validation of this approach to demonstrate its ability to cope with errors in assessing the learning of student peers. We then deepen the representation of learning objects to reflect the expected time to completion and demonstrate how this may lead to more effective selection of learning objects for students, and thus more effective learning. As part of our exploration of these new adjustments, we offer insights into how the size of learning object repositories may affect student learning, suggesting future extensions for the model and its validation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it