Multi-Modal Affective Computing: An Application in Teaching Evaluation Based on Combined Processing of Texts and Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional teaching evaluation emphasizes students' knowledge mastery over their affections. Multi-modal Affective Computing (MAC) can analyze versatile information of students in the classroom, including their facial expressions, gestures, and text feedback, in a comprehensive way, thereby helping teachers discover problems with students' affections in a timely manner, so that they could adjust the teaching methods and strategies accordingly. However, the available MAC technology might make unstable or wrong judgement when dealing with complex affective expressions, then the inaccurate evaluation results of students' affection state might adversely affect the teaching evaluation results. To tackle these issues, this study innovatively applied MAC in teaching evaluation based on combined processing of texts and images. The input texts were divided into two parts: main body and the hash tag, which were subjected to feature extraction respectively. The image features were extracted from two angles: object and scene, since the two angles can give image information of different levels. The MAC model was divided into modal sharing tasks and modal private tasks to attain better adaptability in case of new teaching evaluation scenarios. The effectiveness of the proposed method was verified by experimental results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".