MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Federated Learning Approach for Personalized Online Course Recommendation Using Hybrid Recommender Strategies

2025· article· W7130703853 on OpenAlexaff
Raj Sinha, Vivek Jaglan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean reciprocal rankRecommender systemCollaborative filteringRobustness (evolution)PacePersonalizationLearning to rankOnline learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid pace of growth in online learning environments has made it more difficult for learners to find courses that are tailored to their individual learning needs and goals. Typically, recommender systems rely on centralized data processing, which raises considerable concerns around user privacy and the heterogeneity of user data. This research presents a hybrid recommender system with Federated Learning (FL) characteristics to provide personalized recommendations to users while protecting their data. The recommender system creates four primary recommendation frameworks: Content-Based Filtering (CBF); Popularity-Based; Collaborative Filtering (simulated); and a novel Federated Learning approach that hybridizes on the three other recommended/first ranked approach, whose performance is evaluated with a graphical user interface (GUI) built using Tkinter that provides real-time recommendations to chosen users and comparisons amongst the four recommended approaches using multiple performance measures. The assessment of the systems' efficacy used seven typical evaluation metrics: Hit Rate, Precision@5, Recall@5, F1@5, Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG@5), and Coverage. The bar charts demonstrated that while the Popularity-Based recommendation approach had the highest hit rate respectively and highest precision, it had very low coverage of recommending courses to learners. On the other hand, the Federated Learning-based approach produced a comparable hit rate and precision, while also achieving comparable F1 scores and coverage (86 %). This study emphasized the benefits and practicality of using Federated Learning to build contextually scalable, safe, and effective course recommender systems, and further emphasized the benefits of combining or hybridizing the two approaches for maximum robustness and quality of recommendations, especially for the educationallyfocused digital sphere.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207