A comprehensive review of large language models: issues and solutions in learning environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant advancement in artificial intelligence is the development of large language models (LLMs). Despite opposition and explicit bans by some authorities, LLMs continue to play a transformative role, particularly in education, by improving language understanding and generation capabilities. This study explores LLMs’ types, history, and training processes, alongside their application in education, including digital and higher education settings. A novel theoretical framework is proposed to guide the integration of LLMs into education, addressing key challenges such as personalization, ethical concerns, and adaptability. Furthermore, the study presents practical case studies and solutions to barriers, such as data privacy and bias, offering insights into their role in enhancing the teaching–learning process. By providing a systematic analysis and proposing a structured framework, this study advances current knowledge and highlights the significant potential of LLMs in revolutionizing education.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it