Predicting Online Learners’ Performance Through Ontologies: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review sheds light on the role of ontologies in predicting achievement among online learners, in order to promote their academic success. In particular, it looks at the available literature on predicting online learners’ performance through ontological machine-learning techniques and, using a systematic approach, identifies the existing methodologies and tools used to forecast students’ performance. In addition, the environment for generating ontologies, as considered by academics in the field, is likewise identified. Based on the inclusion criteria and by adopting PRISMA as a research methodology, seven studies and two systematic reviews were selected. The findings reveal a scarcity of research devoted to ontologies in the prediction of learners’ achievement. However, the research outcomes suggest that building an ontological model to harness machine-learning capabilities could help accurately predict students’ academic performance. The results of this systematic review are useful for higher education institutes and curriculum planners. This is especially pertinent in online learning settings to avoid dropout or failure. Also highlighted in this study are numerous possible directions for future research.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".