MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resolving the Paradox of Overconfident Students with Intelligent Methods

2014· book-chapter· en· W2908730233 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Smolin, Sergey Butakov

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in mobile and distance learning book series · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Closing (real estate)Computer scienceTest (biology)Tree (set theory)Mathematics educationArtificial intelligenceCourse (navigation)Machine learningData miningData sciencePsychologyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chapter presents a case study of using data mining tools to solve the puzzle of inconsistency between students' in-class performance and the results of the final tests. Classical test theory cannot explain such inconsistency, while the classification tree generated by one of the well-known data mining algorithms has provided reasonable explanation, which was confirmed by course exit interviews. The experimental results could be used as a case study of implementing Artificial Intelligence-based methods to analyze course results. Such analyses equip educators with an additional tool that allows closing the loop between assessment results and course content and arrangements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in mobile and distance learning book seriesSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207