MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559114496 · doi:10.1109/icalt.2016.89

Learning Object Recommendation System Evaluation

2016· article· en· W2559114496 on OpenAlexaff
M. Ferreira Santos, Fábio Goulart Andrade, Júlia Marques Carvalho da Silva, Hazra Imran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Education and E-Learning
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning objectRecommender systemComputer scienceObject (grammar)Index (typography)World Wide WebMultimediaInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New technologies have been supporting teachers and facilitating students' learning. An example is the learning object, which is defined as any content that aims to teach something. Learning objects are stored in repositories that also provide methods to retrieve and index them. The recommender algorithm was applied on the repository mentioned and analyzed afterwards. Thus, this paper aimed to verify how recommender systems help users to find objects in a repository of the Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpen Education and E-LearningFrench-language works237,207