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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".