Attention-based hierarchical recurrent neural networks for MOOC forum posts analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Massive open online courses (MOOCs) allow students and instructors to discuss through messages posted on a forum. However, the instructors should limit their interaction to the most critical tasks during MOOC delivery so, teacher-led scaffolding activities, such as forum-based support, can be very limited, even impossible in such environments. In addition, students who try to clarify the concepts through such collaborative tools could not receive useful answers, and the lack of interactivity may cause a permanent abandonment of the course. The purpose of this paper is to report the experimental findings obtained evaluating the performance of a text categorization tool capable of detecting the intent, the subject area, the domain topics, the sentiment polarity, and the level of confusion and urgency of a forum post, so that the result may be exploited by instructors to carefully plan their interventions. The proposed approach is based on the application of attention-based hierarchical recurrent neural networks, in which both a recurrent network for word encoding and an attention mechanism for word aggregation at sentence and document levels are used before classification. The integration of the developed classifier inside an existing tool for conversational agents, based on the academically productive talk framework, is also presented as well as the accuracy of the proposed method in the classification of forum posts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".