Using Ontological Engineering to Overcome Common AI-ED Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses long-term prospects of AI-ED research with the aim of giving a clear view of what we need for further promotion of the research from both the AI and ED points of view. An analysis of the current status of AI-ED research is done in the light of intelligence, conceptualization, standardization and theory-awareness. Following this, an ontology-based architecture with appropriate ontologies is proposed. Ontological engineering of IS/ID is next discussed followed by a road map towards an ontology-aware authoring system. Heuristic design patterns and XML-based documentation are also discussed. 1. INTRODUCTION Among AI-ED research done to date, several paradigms such as CAI, ICAI, Micro-world, ITS, ILE, and CSCL have been proposed and many systems have been built within each paradigm. Additionally, innovative computer technologies such as hyper-media, virtual reality, internet, WWW have significantly affected the AI-ED community in general. We really have learned a lot ...
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 | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".