认知评估中的贝叶斯网络和知识结构:关于基本可比性的评论

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jmp.2024.102875
Luigi Burigana
{"title":"认知评估中的贝叶斯网络和知识结构:关于基本可比性的评论","authors":"Luigi Burigana","doi":"10.1016/j.jmp.2024.102875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Two theories of current interest and of mathematical and computational substance concerning knowledge assessment in education are discussed. These are the theory of knowledge structures and the theory of Bayesian networks as specifically related to educational assessment. In four separate sections, the two theories are compared by considering the sets of variables involved in their models, the set-theoretical and relational constructs defined on those variables, the probabilistic assumptions and properties, and the problems addressed by the theories in constructing their models. For the comparison, a common-base system of symbols and terms is adopted, which overcomes the peculiarities of expression in the corresponding streams of literature. This system gives us a better recognition of the similarities and differences between the two paradigms, and a precise appreciation of their arguments and abilities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bayesian networks and knowledge structures in cognitive assessment: Remarks on basic comparable aspects\",\"authors\":\"Luigi Burigana\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmp.2024.102875\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Two theories of current interest and of mathematical and computational substance concerning knowledge assessment in education are discussed. These are the theory of knowledge structures and the theory of Bayesian networks as specifically related to educational assessment. In four separate sections, the two theories are compared by considering the sets of variables involved in their models, the set-theoretical and relational constructs defined on those variables, the probabilistic assumptions and properties, and the problems addressed by the theories in constructing their models. For the comparison, a common-base system of symbols and terms is adopted, which overcomes the peculiarities of expression in the corresponding streams of literature. This system gives us a better recognition of the similarities and differences between the two paradigms, and a precise appreciation of their arguments and abilities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022249624000440\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022249624000440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了当前与教育知识评估有关的两种理论,它们具有数学和计算的实质意义。这两种理论分别是知识结构理论和贝叶斯网络理论,具体与教育评估有关。在四个独立的章节中,通过考虑这两种理论的模型所涉及的变量集、在这些变量上定义的集合理论和关系构造、概率假设和属性,以及这两种理论在构建模型时所解决的问题,对它们进行了比较。为了进行比较,我们采用了一个通用的符号和术语基础系统,它克服了相应文献流在表达上的特殊性。这一系统使我们能够更好地认识两种范式的异同,准确地理解它们的论点和能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bayesian networks and knowledge structures in cognitive assessment: Remarks on basic comparable aspects

Two theories of current interest and of mathematical and computational substance concerning knowledge assessment in education are discussed. These are the theory of knowledge structures and the theory of Bayesian networks as specifically related to educational assessment. In four separate sections, the two theories are compared by considering the sets of variables involved in their models, the set-theoretical and relational constructs defined on those variables, the probabilistic assumptions and properties, and the problems addressed by the theories in constructing their models. For the comparison, a common-base system of symbols and terms is adopted, which overcomes the peculiarities of expression in the corresponding streams of literature. This system gives us a better recognition of the similarities and differences between the two paradigms, and a precise appreciation of their arguments and abilities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1