MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W977537727

Recommending Regulation Strategies.

2015· article· en· W977537727 on OpenAlexaff
Asma Ben Khedher, Claude Frasson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Florida AI Research Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomDisengagement theoryComputer scienceDecision treeArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineMachine learningPsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Negative affective states such as boredom and disengagement, experienced in educational environments, cause student disinterest and lack of concentration. In fact, they are harmful to students’ progress since they decrease their learning gains. This is why regulating learner’s emotions and reengaging him into the learning process, is of primary interest. In this paper, we propose to investigate learner’s negative affective states namely frustration and disengagement since they can divert the student from his learning goal. We assessed also his/her position during a game as well as his behavior in term of tasks performed and objects explored in order to recommend regulation strategies. An experimental study was conducted where physiological data as well as additional features extracted from log files were used as inputs in machine learning classification algorithms. An accuracy of 93.18% was reached by Decision Tree classifier. Results demonstrated that based on students’ affects and behaviors we were able to identify the adequate regulation strategy.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Florida AI Research SocietySame topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207