MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603288 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-096

Research on Personalized Learning Resource Recommendation Method for Students Supported by Artificial Intelligence

2025· article· en· W4409603288 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceKnowledge managementData scienceMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, the education sector is undergoing unprecedented changes.Personalized learning has become a key method to enhance teaching quality and learning outcomes.This paper aims to explore the application of artificial intelligence technology in personalized learning resource recommendation for students, by constructing user profiles, multidimensional models, and personalized recommendation algorithms, in order to provide precise learning resource recommendations for students.This paper proposes a personalized learning resource recommendation algorithm based on a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN).The algorithm first extracts local features of the sequence through convolutional operations, then uses pooling operations to extract long-term features of the sequence, and combines the two features through weighted addition to obtain the user feature information, which allows for the comprehensive extraction of both local and long-term features.Subsequently, the user feature information is multiplied by the linearly transformed sequence information to introduce temporal information.Additionally, student learning records, class performance, and incorrect question records are collected and integrated as user feature information.These user features are passed through a feedforward network to achieve nonlinear transformation and cross-dimensional interaction enhancement.Finally, the user feature vector and item feature vector are computed to obtain their relevance, which is then used for recommendations.Experimental evaluations validate the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed method, with the aim of providing valuable insights for educational reform and development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207