MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic, global and dynamic student modeling in a ubiquitous learning environment

2009· article· en· W43450618 on OpenAlexaff
Sabine Graf, Guangbing Yang, Tzu Chien Liu, Kinshuk Kinshuk

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Component (thermodynamics)Process (computing)Ubiquitous computingPersonalized learningLearning environmentHuman–computer interactionMultimediaActive learning (machine learning)Artificial intelligenceCooperative learningOpen learningTeaching methodMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ubiquitous learning allows students to learn at any time and any place. Adaptivity plays an important role in ubiquitous learning, aiming at providing students with adaptive and personalized learning material, activities, and information at the right place and the right time. However, for providing rich adaptivity, the student model needs to be able to gather a variety of information about the students. In this paper, an automatic, global, and dynamic student modeling approach is introduced, which aims at identifying and frequently updating information about students’ progress, learning styles, interests and knowledge level, problem solving abilities, preferences for using the system, social connectivity, and current location. This information is gathered in an automatic way, using students’ behavior and actions in different learning situations provided by different components/services of the ubiquitous learning environment. By providing a comprehensive student model, students can be supported by rich adaptivity in every component/service of the learning environment. Furthermore, the information in the student model can help in giving teachers a better understanding about the students’ learning process.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International JournalSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207