Automating Transfer Credit Assessment-A Natural Language Processing-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student mobility or academic mobility involves students moving between institutions during their post-secondary education, and one of the challenging tasks in this process is to assess the transfer credits to be offered to the incoming student. In general, this process involves domain experts comparing the learning outcomes of the courses, to decide on offering transfer credits to the incoming students. This manual implementation is not only labor-intensive but also influenced by undue bias and administrative complexity. The proposed research article focuses on identifying a model that exploits the advancements in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) to effectively automate this process. Given the unique structure, domain specificity, and complexity of learning outcomes (LOs), a need for designing a tailor-made model arises. The proposed model uses a clustering-inspired methodology based on knowledge-based semantic similarity measures to assess the taxonomic similarity of LOs and a transformer-based semantic similarity model to assess the semantic similarity of the LOs. The similarity between LOs is further aggregated to form course to course similarity. Due to the lack of quality benchmark datasets, a new benchmark dataset containing seven course-to-course similarity measures is proposed. Understanding the inherent need for flexibility in the decision-making process the aggregation part of the model offers tunable parameters to accommodate different levels of leniency. While providing an efficient model to assess the similarity between courses with existing resources, this research work also steers future research attempts to apply NLP in the field of articulation in an ideal direction by highlighting the persisting research gaps.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".