The Human Intelligence vs. Artificial Intelligence: Issues and Challenges in Computer Assisted Language Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the researcher has advocated the importance of human intelligence in language learning since software or any Learning Management System (LMS) cannot be programmed to understand the human context as well as all the linguistic structures contextually. This study examined the extent to which language learning is perilous to machine learning and its programs such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Pattern Recognition, and Image Analysis used in much assistive learning techniques such as voice detection, face detection and recognition, personalized assistants, besides language learning programs. The researchers argue that language learning is closely associated with human intelligence, human neural networks and no computers or software can claim to replace or replicate those functions of human brain. This study thus posed a challenge to natural language processing (NLP) techniques that claimed having taught a computer how to understand the way humans learn, to understand text without any clue or calculation, to realize the ambiguity in human languages in terms of the juxtaposition between the context and the meaning, and also to automate the language learning process between computers and humans. The study cites evidence of deficiencies in such machine learning software and gadgets to prove that in spite of all technological advancements there remain areas of human brain and human intelligence where a computer or its software cannot enter. These deficiencies highlight the limitations of AI and super intelligence systems of machines to prove that human intelligence would always remain superior.
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 | 0.036 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.054 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".