Increasing Student Engagement with Personalized Emails
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
Despite a large number of studies in personalizing e-learning systems, only a few sufficiently cover the impact of personalization on university emails. Either universities impose the use of university email or students are reluctant to use it. For instance, It was found that at King Abdulaziz University only 23% of students were using the university email to communicate regularly, unlike the faculty members, who showed an 80% commitment. However, this paper attempts to investigate the effect of applying different personalized systems on the university email and whether using adaptation and adaptability techniques in the university email will cover the huge gap between the university and its members. Specifically, frameworks were built to evaluate the efficiency, frequency of error occurrence, effectiveness, and user satisfaction in each experiment. We focused on testing the usability of personalized email against the existing university email and then evaluate which approach (adaptive, adaptable, or mixed-initiative) is more favorable to personalize the university email. These were conducted and evaluated using 40 subjects. Interestingly, results show that subjects with personalized emails were most efficient and satisfied as well as errors were reduced by 42%. Furthermore, significant differences were found between the three approaches (adaptive, adaptable, and mixed-initiative), and the adaptive approach was the most preferred by the respondents. A set of empirically derived guidelines was also discussed as a basis for developing a suitable university email structure.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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