Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT), along with other machine learning approaches, are biased toward data used during the training step. Thus, for problems where we have few amounts of data for training, the generalization power will be low, the models will tend to give good results on classes containing many examples and poor results on those with few examples. Theses problems are frequent in educational data where for example, there are skills that are very difficult (floor) or very easy to master (ceiling). There will be less data on students that correctly answered questions related to difficult knowledge and that incorrectly answered questions related to knowledge easy to master. In that case, the DKT is unable to correctly predict the student's answers to questions associated with those skills. To improve the DKT, we penalize the model using a 'cost-sensitive' technique. To overcome the problem of the few amounts of data, we propose a hybrid model combining the DKT and expert knowledge. Thus, the DKT is combined with a Bayesian Network (built from domain experts) by using the attention mechanism. The resulting model can accurately track knowledge of students in Logic-Muse Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), compared to the BKT and the original DKT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".