Lightweight and Interpretable Detection of Affective Engagement for Online Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offering online learners with a personalized, ethical, and privacy-protecting pedagogical companion that can detect their affective engagement and that can run on the devices they use to learn (edge devices) requires not only generating lightweight models but also interpretable, trustworthy, and generalizable ones. SqueezeNet is a lightweight deep neural network architecture, which is more popular for the edge devices. This paper showcases how SqueezeNet appears not to provide as meaningful explanations of its predictions of academic emotions as those of a lightweight traditional CNN model. More specifically, the winning CNN model, consisting of 473,317 parameters, delivers a predictive accuracy of 99.4% on the testing set, while maintaining an identical level of descriptive accuracy. In contrast, the best SqueezeNet model comprises 141,301 parameters (3x less) and has a predictive accuracy of 93.7% and a dropping descriptive accuracy of 84.0%. In brief, the SqueezeNet model does not maintain a similarly high descriptive accuracy and does not effectively identify facial features corresponding to the confusion, distraction, enjoyment, neutrality, and fatigue emotions.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".