MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146258359 · doi:10.18280/ts.380116

Recognition of Teaching Features and Behaviors in Online Open Courses Based on Image Processing

2021· article· en· W3146258359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sheliang Li, Huaqi Chai

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityComputer scienceHistogramArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineQuality (philosophy)Teaching methodMultimediaPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics educationImage (mathematics)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-quality online open courses have a wide audience. To further improve the quality of these courses, it is critical to analyze the teaching behaviors in class, which are the manifestation of the overall quality of the teacher. Considering the popularity of image processing-based behavior recognition in many disciplines, this paper explores deep into the teaching features and behaviors in online open courses based on image processing. Firstly, a coding scale was designed for teaching behaviors in online open courses. Next, the principle of optical flow solving was explained for teaching video images. Then, a teaching behavior feature extraction model was established based on dual-flow deep CNN, and used to extract the key points of teacher body and the behavior features of the teacher. After that, a teaching behavior recognition method was developed combining histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) and support vector machine (SVM) to accurately allocate the teaching features and behaviors to the corresponding teaching links. Finally, the proposed model was proved effective through experiments. Based on the recognized teaching behaviors, the frequency and duration of such behaviors were subject to comparative analysis, revealing the teaching features in high-quality online open courses.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207