MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406600009 · doi:10.58459/icce.2012.547

Intelligent feedback polarity and timing selection in the Shufti Intelligent Tutoring System

2012· article· en· W4406600009 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Johnson, Osmar R. Zai͏̈ane

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Computers in Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarity (international relations)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceIntelligent tutoring systemHuman–computer interactionMultimediaArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that the training of medical students is a long and arduous process. Students master many areas of knowledge in a relatively short amount of time in order to become experts in their chosen field. The Socratic Method used in the latter stages of medical education, where a physician directly monitors a group of students, is inherently restrictive due to the limited number of cases and length of the students’ rotations. Innovative Intelligent Tutoring techniques offer a solution to this problem. This paper outlines the overall structure and design of Shufti, an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) focused on mammography and medical imaging. Shufti's aim is to provide medical students with an improved learning environment, exposing them to a broad range of examples supported by customized feedback and hints driven by an adaptive Reinforcement Learning system and Clustering Techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Computers in EducationSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207