MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226071117 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qa9td

Conversational agents for fostering curiosity-driven learning in children

2022· preprint· en· W4226071117 on OpenAlexaff
Rania Abdelghani, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer, Edith Law, Catherine de Vulpillières, Hélène Sauzeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAssociation Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
KeywordsCuriosityPsychologyCompetence (human resources)MetacognitionIncentiveCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curiosity is an important factor that favors independent and individualized learning in children. Research suggests that it is also a competence that can be fostered by training specific metacognitive skills and information-searching behaviors. In this light, we develop a conversational agent that helps children generate curiosity-driven questions, and encourages their use to lead autonomous explorations and gain new knowledge. The study was conducted with 51 primary school students who interacted with either a neutral agent or an incentive agent that helped curiosity-driven questioning by offering specific semantic cues. Results showed a significant increase in the number and the quality of the questions generated with the incentive agent. This interaction also resulted in longer explorations and stronger learning progress. Together, our results suggest that the more our agent is able to train children's curiosity-related metacognitive skills, the better they can maintain their information-searching behaviors and the more new knowledge they are likely to acquire.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychological and Educational Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207