MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154748208 · doi:10.1109/crv52889.2021.00028

Improving state-of-the-art in Detecting Student Engagement with Resnet and TCN Hybrid Network

2021· preprint· en· W3154748208 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Abedi, Shehroz S. Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual neural networkComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkResidualStudent engagementKey (lock)Deep learningArtificial intelligenceArchitectureFeature (linguistics)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics educationPsychologyComputer securityAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic detection of students' engagement in online learning settings is a key element to improve the quality of learning and to deliver personalized learning materials to them. Varying levels of engagement exhibited by students in an online classroom is an affective behavior that takes place over space and time. Therefore, we formulate detecting levels of students' engagement from videos as a spatio-temporal classification problem. In this paper, we present a novel end-to-end Residual Network (ResNet) and Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) hybrid neural network architecture for students' engagement level detection in videos. The 2D ResNet extracts spatial features from consecutive video frames, and the TCN analyzes the temporal changes in video frames to detect the level of engagement. The spatial and temporal arms of the hybrid network are jointly trained on raw video frames of a large publicly available students' engagement detection dataset, DAiSEE. We compared our method with several competing students' engagement detection methods on this dataset. The ResNet+TCN architecture outperforms all other studied methods, improves the state-of-the-art engagement level detection accuracy, and sets a new baseline for future research.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.004
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207