MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401009318 · doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00153-0

AI-based adaptive instructional systems for maritime safety training: a systematic literature review

2024· article· en· W4401009318 on OpenAlexafffund
Elham Karimi, Jennifer Smith, Randy Billard, Brian Veitch

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSystematic reviewArtificial intelligenceAnalyticsData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adaptive instructional systems (AISs) refer to educational interventions designed to accommodate individual learner differences. These systems employ various approaches, such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and data analytics, to analyze student performance and personalize the learning experience. This article presents a review of the current state-of-the-art of AI methods used in the development of AISs for maritime safety training. The main objective of this systematic literature review is to determine the use of AI/ML techniques in AIS and how they can contribute to the development of AIS for maritime education and training (MET) applications in addressing small data problems. Answering the research questions of the review identifies the fundamental purposes of using AI/ML techniques in developing AIS for MET. Further, the review highlights several crucial research areas, including AI techniques for modelling student and instructor knowledge, as well as ML algorithms for predicting student performance in situations with limited datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover Artificial IntelligenceSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207