Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 95 references

The Impact of Generative AI on Student Churn and the Future of Formal Education

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Generative AI-driven personalised learning is pushing high school students to bypass university and pursue entrepreneurship, and that this shift is visible in social media discourse.

desk verdict The paper's central claim about generative AI driving students to skip university is unsupported by any shown data; the only quantitative results are recycled clustering benchmarks, and the Twitter analysis that supposedly grounds the claim is described but never presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00605 v1 pith:I3NU4DE2 submitted 2024-11-30 cs.IR

Stephen Elbourn This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords GenerativeAIPersonalisedlearningEducationtransformationEntrepreneurialambitionsStudentchurnSocialmediaanalysisDeepembeddedclusteringSentiment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that Generative AI's personalised learning is changing the educational pipeline: high school students, feeling equipped by AI-tailored instruction, are increasingly choosing entrepreneurial ventures over university degrees. To support that argument, it analyses 50,000 education-related tweets with a pipeline that contextualises posts using ProcessGPT, embeds them with DistilBERT, and clusters them with self-organising maps or k-means. The resulting clusters are read as evidence of themes such as personalised learning, student engagement, shifting career aspirations, ethical concerns, accessibility, teacher support, and a re-evaluation of formal education. If the trend is real, universities, employers, and policymakers would need to rethink curricula, credentials, and success metrics. The paper's central offering is a method for reading an emerging educational shift in social media before enrolment statistics catch up.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a text-clustering pipeline. ProcessGPT, a fine-tuned generative pretrained transformer, first contextualises raw tweets by linking extracted features to domain knowledge; DistilBERT then converts the texts into dense vector representations; and a deep embedded clustering layer groups the vectors using label-as-representation, k-means, or a self-organising map, trained with a contrastive loss plus a KL-divergence clustering loss against a sharpened auxiliary distribution. This pipeline is what turns 50,000 unstructured tweets into labelled clusters that the paper reads as evidence of trends in personalised learning, student engagement, career aspirations, ethical concerns, accessibility, teacher support, and the future of formal education.

What would settle it

Compare the tweet-derived clusters and sentiments with official university enrolment rates and new-business registration rates for 17- to 19-year-olds over the same six months; if sentiment is positive but enrolment is steady or rising, or if the tweet authors are mostly adults and AI vendors, the claimed shift is discourse rather than behaviour.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Generative AI is measurably reshaping educational and career pathways: students empowered by AI-driven personalised learning are opting to forgo traditional university degrees in favour of launching ventures at a younger age. The claimed discovery is that this shift is visible in Twitter discourse, where clustered posts about hashtags such as #AIinEducation, #StudentChurn, and #Entrepreneurship show positive sentiment around personalised learning and entrepreneurial career aspirations alongside concerns about data privacy and algorithmic bias. The author presents these clusters as evidence that formal education's monopoly on credentialing is being challenged, and that the future of education will be more personalised, more entrepreneurial, and more AI-mediated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 50,000 tweets collected with unspecified keywords over six months actually represent what high school students decide about university and entrepreneurship; if the tweets are unrepresentative or are not authored by high school students, the trend claims built on them collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Universities would face measurable student churn as AI-proficient high schoolers choose entrepreneurial routes, forcing institutions to articulate what a degree adds beyond personalised AI learning.
  • Education systems would need new success metrics beyond standardised tests and degree completion to capture personalised and entrepreneurial learning outcomes.
  • Policymakers would need data-privacy, algorithmic-bias, and digital-divide safeguards for AI-driven education, as the paper recommends.
  • Social-media analytics of this kind could become a forecasting tool for educational trends, predicting shifts in career aspirations before official enrolment data reflect them.
  • AI-driven personalised learning would be positioned as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, formal higher education.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: if the central claim is correct, the 'churn' it names is not only students leaving universities; it is a shift in who credentials skills, from degree-granting institutions toward AI platforms and venture outcomes.
  • My inference: the method's Twitter evidence could be tested against official enrolment and startup-formation statistics by age cohort and region; a mismatch would show that tweets track discourse rather than decisions.
  • My inference: a testable extension is to run the same pipeline on other platforms and on longitudinal data to see whether the entrepreneurship cluster grows over time or is a transient narrative.
  • My inference: treating 'entrepreneurial ventures' as one category is a simplification; separating solo online businesses, funded startups, and freelance work would give a sharper picture of how formal education is actually being bypassed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper claims to study whether generative AI-driven personalised learning is causing high school students to forgo traditional university education and pursue entrepreneurial ventures. The authors describe a social media analytics framework that combines ProcessGPT-based contextualisation with deep embedded clustering (DistilBERT embeddings, contrastive learning, and SOM/K-means clustering), and they apply it to 50,000 tweets collected over six months. The only quantitative experiments reported are hyperparameter sweeps on the AgNews and StackOverflow benchmark datasets (Section 4.2). The Twitter analysis is described qualitatively through Tables 4 and 5, and the paper concludes with policy recommendations and a claim of high precision, recall, and F1 scores. The central empirical claim—that the Twitter data reveals a student-churn trend driven by generative AI—is not supported by any quantitative evidence in the manuscript.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper's central claim would be significant for education policy, educational technology, and entrepreneurship research, and social-media-based measurement of educational aspirations is a plausible methodological direction. The paper does provide a reasonably detailed description of a clustering pipeline and documents hyperparameter calibration on two benchmark datasets with tables and figures. However, the benchmark results cannot substitute for evidence about the Twitter dataset, and the paper's own load-bearing assertion about high school students bypassing university is therefore currently untested. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions (e.g., a measurable shift in high-school students' stated enrolment decisions), but it does not supply the data needed to test them. On the positive side, the benchmark experiments are reported with explicit parameter values, which is a useful practice, and the paper's proposed pipeline is clearly described even if it is largely recycled from the authors' prior work.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Section 5] The Twitter dataset, on which the paper's central claim rests, is never actually evaluated. Section 4.3 states that the dataset contains 50,000 tweets collected over a six-month period with keywords related to education and generative AI, but it reports no search query, no tweet IDs or exact date range, no language or bot filtering, no demographic validation (age, occupation, or region), no inter-annotator agreement for sentiment labels, no sentiment distribution, and no cluster sizes or topic proportions. The conclusion in Section 5 claims 'high precision, recall, and F1 scores for feature extraction and clustering accuracy,' yet those scores appear nowhere in the manuscript. Without these measurements, the load-bearing assertion in Section 1.1—that many high school students are increasingly bypassing university for entrepreneurial ventures because of generative AI—is unsupported.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Table 5] The central trend is asserted before it is analysed. Section 1.1 and Section 2.4 state the churn trend as fact, and Section 4.3's Table 5 then 'discovers' the same narrative in the Career Aspirations row without any quantitative evidence connecting tweet content to actual educational or career decisions. The analysis is therefore circular with respect to the hypothesis. To break the circularity, the paper would need to show that tweets from verified high-school-aged users contain explicit statements linking generative AI use to a decision to forgo university (for example, counts of such tweets, representative quotes, and a comparison with general education discourse). None of this is provided.
  3. [Section 4.2 vs. Section 4.3] The only quantitative evaluation (Tables 1–3 and Figures 3–5) calibrates hyperparameters on AgNews and StackOverflow. These benchmark results validate the clustering algorithm on news titles and StackOverflow question titles; they do not validate feature extraction, sentiment analysis, user demographics, or trend detection on Twitter. No precision, recall, NMI, or ACC is reported for the Twitter dataset. Consequently, the stated contribution—understanding student churn via social media—is not tested by the experiments that are actually reported.
  4. [Section 1.2.2 and Section 3.2] The paper describes the clustering method as novel ('a novel approach for Learning Distributed Representations and Deep Embedded Clustering of Texts'), but the method is presented as identical to the authors' prior work [86], including the same framework description and figure captions. No extension or adaptation to the educational domain is described beyond the statement that ProcessGPT was fine-tuned (Section 3.1.2), and no details of that fine-tuning (training data, hyperparameters, validation procedure) are given. The methodological novelty is therefore not established, and the only potentially new part of the work—the Twitter application—is the part that lacks evidence.
  5. [Section 4.4] The policy and regulatory recommendations in Section 4.4 are introduced as 'Based on the findings of this paper,' but the preceding sections do not report any quantitative findings from the Twitter analysis. The recommendations may be reasonable as general policy discussion, but as presented they are not derived from the evidence in the manuscript. Either the relevant findings must be reported with numbers, or this section should be re-framed as a synthesis of prior literature and expert opinion rather than as an outcome of the current analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The dataset name is inconsistently spelled as 'AgNews' in most places and 'Avgnews' in Section 4.2.1 and Tables 1–2; please unify the spelling throughout.
  2. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'synpapere findings' appears to be a typo and should read 'synthesise paper findings' or similar.
  3. [Section 3.3.2] Equation cross-references in the text are malformed in several places, such as 'according to EquationEquation 5.' and 'in terms of EquationEquation 12.'; please clean up the duplicated 'Equation' formatting.
  4. [Section 4.3] Table 4 is introduced as illustrating 'the important features and insights extracted from the tweets,' but it contains only qualitative feature lists and no counts, percentages, or effect sizes. Please either add quantitative columns (e.g., keyword frequencies, sentiment proportions, engagement statistics, cluster sizes) or explicitly label the table as an illustrative taxonomy rather than a result table.
  5. [Section 3.3.3] The SOM-specific hyperparameters (map dimensions M and N, initial learning rate, neighbourhood decay delta(t), and the alpha value for the Student t-distribution) are not reported for any experiment. Please specify these values for both the benchmark and Twitter runs so that the results are reproducible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Methodological novelty is carried by a self-citation to the author's own prior deep-embedded-clustering paper; the student-churn trend is asserted in the introduction and restated in Table 5 without quantitative Twitter evidence, while the benchmark tuning is independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 1.2.2 and Section 3.2; Figures 1-2]
    "Building on the contextualised social data, this paper implements a novel approach to learn distributed representations and perform deep embedded clustering of texts. ... The second step of our methodology introduces a novel approach for Learning Distributed Representations and Deep Embedded Clustering of Texts86. ... Figure 1. The proposed overall framework86."

    Reference [86] is Wang, Beheshti, Wang, Lu, Sheng, Elbourn, and Alinejad-Rokny, 'Learning distributed representations and deep embedded clustering of texts' (Algorithms 16(3):158, 2023), co-authored by the present author. The paper's claimed contribution 1.2.2 and the central methodology of Section 3.2 are therefore imported from the authors' own prior publication, and the figures are explicitly credited to that paper. Because Section 4.3 reports no quantitative validation of the method on the Twitter dataset (no query, no demographic checks, no cluster sizes or accuracy numbers), the 'novel approach' claim rests entirely on this self-citation rather than on new evidence in the present paper.

full rationale

The only clear circularity is in the methodological novelty claim: the 'novel approach' of Section 1.2.2 and Section 3.2 is reference [86], a paper co-authored by the present author, so the contribution reduces to a self-citation. The benchmark experiments on AgNews and StackOverflow in Section 4.2 are self-contained and not circular, but they are hyperparameter calibrations, not evidence for the student-churn claim. The Section 1.1 assertion that high school students are increasingly bypassing university is repeated almost verbatim as the 'Career Aspirations' insight in Table 5; however, since the Twitter dataset analysis is described only qualitatively, this is an evidence gap rather than a reduction-by-construction of the kind needed for a higher circularity score. The absence of the Twitter query, demographic validation, and inter-annotator agreement is a serious correctness risk, but it is not itself a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a large set of tuning parameters and unsupported domain assumptions, while the actual data and code are absent.

free parameters (5)
  • learning rate = 10^-5 for best AgNews NMI/ACC
    Table 1 tunes learning rate on AgNews and StackOverflow; the choice affects clustering result.
  • learning rate scale = 500 for AgNews best, 250 or 500 for StackOverflow
    Table 2 and Figure 4; this is an additional scaling hyperparameter applied before the learning rate.
  • temperature tau = 0.9 for best AgNews NMI/ACC
    Table 3 and Figure 5; temperature controls sharpness of the contrastive loss.
  • Student t degrees of freedom alpha = 1
    Set by default following [82], used in Eq. 10 for cluster assignment probabilities.
  • SOM grid size M x N = not specified for Twitter
    The SOM algorithm requires map dimensions; the paper gives no values for the claimed Twitter experiment.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Twitter discourse is representative of actual student educational decisions
    Section 1.1 and 4.3 use tweet sentiment and hashtags as evidence for the churn trend without any validation against enrolment data.
  • domain assumption Keyword filtering and relevance scoring correctly isolate Generative AI in education
    Section 3.1.1 describes filtering but gives no keyword list, thresholds, or evaluation of the relevance model.
  • ad hoc to paper The central churn trend exists before the analysis
    Section 1.1 asserts that students are increasingly forgoing degrees; the analysis is then framed as confirming this assertion.
  • standard math Deep embedded clustering equations from prior literature are correct
    Equations 10-12 use Student's t-distribution and KL divergence from [82,89]; these are standard but unproved in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Generative AI on Student Churn and the Future of Formal Education." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I3NU4DE2

@misc{pith2026241200605,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Generative AI on Student Churn and the Future of Formal Education},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I3NU4DE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00605}
}
read the original abstract

In the contemporary educational landscape, the advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents unprecedented opportunities for personalised learning, fundamentally challenging the traditional paradigms of education. This research explores the emerging trend where high school students, empowered by tailored educational experiences provided by Generative AI, opt to forgo traditional university degrees to pursue entrepreneurial ventures at a younger age. To understand and predict the future of education in the age of Generative AI, we employ a comprehensive methodology to analyse social media data. Our approach includes sentiment analysis to gauge public opinion, topic modelling to identify key themes and emerging trends, and user demographic analysis to understand the engagement of different age groups and regions. We also perform influencer analysis to identify key figures shaping the discourse and engagement metrics to measure the level of interest and interaction with AI-related educational content. Content analysis helps us to determine the types of content being shared and the prevalent narratives, while hashtag analysis reveals the connectivity of discussions. The temporal analysis tracks changes over time and identifies event-based spikes in discussions. The insights derived from this analysis include the acceptance and adoption of Generative AI in education, its impact on traditional education models, the influence on students' entrepreneurial ambitions, and the educational outcomes associated with AI-driven personalised learning. Additionally, we explore public sentiment towards policies and regulations and use predictive modelling to forecast future trends. This comprehensive social media analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the evolving educational landscape, offering valuable perspectives on the role of Generative AI in shaping the future of education.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00605 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed overall framework 86 . In this paper, we use the pre-trained BERT29 to represent words and sentences in the given answers. We also ex￾plore the usage of the BiLSTM model 37 for learning word-level and sentence-level information when we have few resources to fine-tune the whole BERT model. The procedure of text clustering, including representation and clus￾tering, is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The procedure of text clustering 86 . Vector Representation BERT. In the input, BERT adds a special leading token [cls] at the beginning of the input text (e.g., [cls] Artificial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Algorithm Componenet Comparison with StackOverflow for NMI and ACC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Learning Rate Scale Calibration and Algorithm Componenet Comparison with StackOverflow for NMI and ACC . [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Learning Rate Scale Calibration and Algorithm Componenet Comparison with StackOverflow for NMI and ACC . [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [86]

    S. Wang, A. Beheshti, Y. Wang, J. Lu, Q. Z. Sheng, S. Elbourn, and H. Alinejad-Rokny. Learning distributed representations and deep embedded clustering of texts. Algorithms, 16(3):158, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    https://www.wiley.com/en-us/education/alta, 2024

    Alta: Adaptive learning technology. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/education/alta, 2024. Accessed: 2024- 08-05

    2024

  3. [2]

    Chatgpt: Generative ai program used by school and university students.https://www.abc.net

    ABC News. Chatgpt: Generative ai program used by school and university students.https://www.abc.net. au/news/2024-06-20/chatgpt-generative-ai-program-used-school-university-students/103990784 , June 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-04

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Adithya and S

    P. Adithya and S. Muralidharan. Entrepreneurship powered by ai: New age of business and education. In Social Reflections of Human-Computer Interaction in Education, Management, and Economics, pages 55–72. IGI Global, 2024

    2024

  5. [4]

    A. M. Al-Ansi, M. Jaboob, A. Garad, and A. Al-Ansi. Analyzing augmented reality (ar) and virtual reality (vr) recent development in education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1):100532, 2023

    2023

  6. [5]

    E. A. Alasadi and C. R. Baiz. Generative ai in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8):2965–2971, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Aldoseri, K

    A. Aldoseri, K. N. Al-Khalifa, and A. M. Hamouda. Re-thinking data strategy and integration for artificial intelligence: concepts, opportunities, and challenges. Applied Sciences, 13(12):7082, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    Australian framework for generative artificial intelligence (ai) in schools, 2024

    Australian Government Department of Education. Australian framework for generative artificial intelligence (ai) in schools, 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-04

    2024

Show all 95 references
  1. [8]

    J. L. Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450, pages 1–14, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    R. S. Baker and A. Hawn. Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 1–41, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Bakhshi, J

    H. Bakhshi, J. Downing, M. Osborne, and P. Schneider. The future of skills: Employment in 2030. Pearson, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Baumgart and A

    A. Baumgart and A. Madany Mamlouk. A knowledge-model for ai-driven tutoring systems. In Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XXXIII, pages 1–18. IOS Press, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Beheshti

    A. Beheshti. Knowledge base 4.0: Using crowdsourcing services for mimicking the knowledge of domain ex- perts. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pages 425–427. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Beheshti

    A. Beheshti. Empowering generative ai with knowledge base 4.0: towards linking analytical, cognitive, and generative intelligence. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pages 763–771. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Beheshti

    A. Beheshti. Natural language-oriented programming (nlop): Towards democratizing software creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05409, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Beheshti, B

    A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, A. Tabebordbar, H. R. Motahari-Nezhad, M. C. Barukh, and R. Nouri. Datasy- napse: A social data curation foundry. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 37:351–384, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    BEHESHTI, S

    A. BEHESHTI, S. Elbourn, A. Tabebordbar, and S. Wang. A system and method for automated assessment of student learning and understanding of material. 2021

    2021

  10. [17]

    Beheshti, S

    A. Beheshti, S. Ghodratnama, M. Elahi, and H. Farhood. Social data analytics. CRC press, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Beheshti, K

    A. Beheshti, K. Vaghani, B. Benatallah, and A. Tabebordbar. Crowdcorrect: A curation pipeline for social data cleansing and curation. In Information Systems in the Big Data Era: CAiSE Forum 2018, Tallinn, Esto- nia, June 11-15, 2018, Proceedings 30, pages 24–38. Springer, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Beheshti, S

    A. Beheshti, S. Yakhchi, S. Mousaeirad, S. M. Ghafari, S. R. Goluguri, and M. A. Edrisi. Towards cognitive recommender systems. Algorithms, 13(8):176, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Beheshti, J

    A. Beheshti, J. Yang, Q. Z. Sheng, B. Benatallah, F. Casati, S. Dustdar, H. R. M. Nezhad, X. Zhang, and S. Xue. Processgpt: transforming business process management with generative artificial intelligence. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), pages 731...

    2023

  14. [21]

    Beheshti, B

    S.-M.-R. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, and H. R. Motahari-Nezhad. Scalable graph-based olap analytics over pro- cess execution data. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 34:379–423, 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    Beheshti, B

    S.-M.-R. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, S. Venugopal, S. H. Ryu, H. R. Motahari-Nezhad, and W. Wang. A system- atic review and comparative analysis of cross-document coreference resolution methods and tools. Computing, 99:313–349, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Beheshti, A

    S.-M.-R. Beheshti, A. Tabebordbar, B. Benatallah, and R. Nouri. On automating basic data curation tasks. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pages 165–169, 2017

    2017

  17. [24]

    R. E. Bennett. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 18(1):5–25, 2011

    2011

  18. [25]

    Brender, L

    J. Brender, L. El-Hamamsy, F. Mondada, and E. Bumbacher. Who’s helping who? when students use chatgpt to engage in practice lab sessions. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 235–249. Springer, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    Brynjolfsson, D

    E. Brynjolfsson, D. Li, and L. R. Raymond. Generative ai at work. Technical report, National Bureau of Eco- nomic Research, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Carnegie learning.https://www.carnegielearning.com/, 2024

    Carnegie Learning. Carnegie learning.https://www.carnegielearning.com/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-05

    2024

  21. [28]

    R. Cullen. Addressing the digital divide. Online information review, 25(5):311–320, 2001

    2001

  22. [29]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologi...

    2019

  23. [30]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arxiv. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2019

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Epstein, A

    Z. Epstein, A. Hertzmann, I. of Human Creativity, M. Akten, H. Farid, J. Fjeld, M. R. Frank, M. Groh, L. Herman, N. Leach, et al. Art and the science of generative ai. Science, 380(6650):1110–1111, 2023

    2023

  25. [32]

    N. V. Eziamaka, T. N. Odonkor, and A. A. Akinsulire. Ai-driven accessibility: Transformative software solu- tions for empowering individuals with disabilities. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 6(8):1612–1641, 2024

    2024

  26. [33]

    Farhood, I

    H. Farhood, I. Joudah, A. Beheshti, and S. Muller. Evaluating and enhancing artificial intelligence models for predicting student learning outcomes. In Informatics, volume 11, page 46. MDPI, 2024

    2024

  27. [34]

    X. Guo, L. Gao, X. Liu, and J. Yin. Improved deep embedded clustering with local structure preservation. In IJCAI, pages 1753–1759, 2017

    2017

  28. [35]

    Hanif, A

    A. Hanif, A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, X. Zhang, Habiba, E. Foo, N. Shabani, and M. Shahabikargar. A com- prehensive survey of explainable artificial intelligence (xai) methods: Exploring transparency and interpretabil- ity. In International Conference on Web Information System...

    2023

  29. [36]

    Hattie and H

    J. Hattie and H. Timperley. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1):81–112, 2007

    2007

  30. [37]

    Hochreiter and J

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  31. [38]

    Holmes, F

    W. Holmes, F. Miao, et al. Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Hutson and J

    J. Hutson and J. Ceballos. Rethinking education in the age of ai: the importance of developing durable skills in the industry 4.0. Journal of Information Economics, 1(2), 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Hwang, H

    G.-J. Hwang, H. Xie, B. W. Wah, and D. Gašević. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education, 2020

    2020

  34. [41]

    Jafari, D

    M. Jafari, D. Sadeghi, A. Shoeibi, H. Alinejad-Rokny, A. Beheshti, D. L. García, Z. Chen, U. R. Acharya, and J. M. Gorriz. Empowering precision medicine: Ai-driven schizophrenia diagnosis via eeg signals: A comprehen- sive review from 2002–2023. Applied Intelligence, 54(1):35–79, 2024

    2002

  35. [42]

    Jafari, A

    M. Jafari, A. Shoeibi, N. Ghassemi, J. Heras, A. Khosravi, S. H. Ling, R. Alizadehsani, A. Beheshti, Y.-D. Zhang, S.-H. Wang, et al. Automatic diagnosis of myocarditis disease in cardiac mri modality using deep transformers and explainable artificial intelligence. arXiv prepri...

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    P. Jain, M. Gyanchandani, and N. Khare. Big data privacy: a technological perspective and review. Journal of Big Data, 3:1–25, 2016

    2016

  37. [44]

    M. Jian. Personalized learning through ai. Advances in Engineering Innovation, 5(1), 2023

    2023

  38. [45]

    P. Kerr. Adaptive learning. Elt Journal, 70(1):88–93, 2016

    2016

  39. [46]

    Khadivizand, A

    S. Khadivizand, A. Beheshti, F. Sobhanmanesh, Q. Z. Sheng, E. Istanbouli, S. Wood, and D. Pezaro. Towards intelligent feature engineering for risk-based customer segmentation in banking. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Mult...

    2020

  40. [47]

    E. T. Khor and M. K. A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in supporting personalized learn- ing. Education Sciences, 14(1):51, 2023

    2023

  41. [48]

    T. Kohonen. The self-organizing map. Proceedings of the IEEE, 78(9):1464–1480, 1990

    1990

  42. [49]

    T. Kohonen. Essentials of the self-organizing map. Neural Networks, 37:52–65, 2013

    2013

  43. [50]

    Koravuna and U

    S. Koravuna and U. K. Surepally. Educational gamification and artificial intelligence for promoting digital literacy. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applica- tions, pages 1–6, 2020

    2020

  44. [51]

    J. A. Kulik and J. D. Fletcher. Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a meta-analytic review. Review of educational research, 86(1):42–78, 2016

    2016

  45. [52]

    k. lee, S. Datta, H. Paek, M. Rastegar-Mojarad, L.-C. Huang, L. He, S. Wang, J. Wang, and X. Wang. Aid-slr: A generative artificial intelligence-driven automated system for systematic literature review. medRxiv, pages 2024–07, 2024

    2024

  46. [53]

    Q. Li, H. Peng, J. Li, Y. Hei, R. Sun, J. Sheng, S. Guo, and L. Wang. A comprehensive survey on schema- based event extraction with deep learning. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGI- NEERING, 14(9):1, 2021

    2021

  47. [54]

    Y. Li, P. Hu, Z. Liu, D. Peng, J. T. Zhou, and X. Peng. Contrastive clustering. In THIRTY-FIFTH AAAI CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, THIRTY-THIRD CONFERENCE ON INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE ELEVENTH SYMPOSIUM ON EDUCA- TIONAL ADVANCES IN ART...

    2021

  48. [55]

    Luckin and W

    R. Luckin and W. Holmes. Intelligence unleashed: An argument for ai in education. 2016

    2016

  49. [56]

    X. Luo, J. Wu, J. Yang, S. Xue, A. Beheshti, Q. Z. Sheng, D. McAlpine, P. Sowman, A. Giral, and P. S. Yu. Graph neural networks for brain graph learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02594, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    R. F. Mello, E. Freitas, F. D. Pereira, L. Cabral, P. Tedesco, and G. Ramalho. Education in the age of genera- tive ai: Context and recent developments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12332, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    D. Miller. Leveraging BERT for extractive text summarization on lectures. ArXiv, abs/1906.04165:1–7, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Mouthami, K

    K. Mouthami, K. N. Devi, and V. M. Bhaskaran. Sentiment analysis and classification based on textual re- views. In 2013 international conference on Information communication and embedded systems (ICICES), pages 271–276. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  53. [60]

    N. J. Nilsson. The quest for artificial intelligence. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  54. [61]

    H. S. Nwana. Intelligent tutoring systems: an overview. Artificial Intelligence Review, 4(4):251–277, 1990

    1990

  55. [62]

    Pesovski, R

    I. Pesovski, R. Santos, R. Henriques, and V. Trajkovik. Generative ai for customizable learning experiences. Sustainability, 16(7):3034, 2024

    2024

  56. [63]

    M. E. Peters, M. Neumann, M. Iyyer, M. Gardner, C. Clark, K. Lee, and L. Zettlemoyer. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, ...

    2018

  57. [64]

    Rajabi and S.-M.-R

    E. Rajabi and S.-M.-R. Beheshti. Interlinking big data to web of data. Big Data optimization: Recent devel- opments and challenges, pages 133–145, 2016

    2016

  58. [65]

    V. K. Reddy, L. Said, B. Sengupta, M. Chetlur, J. Costantino, A. Gopinath, S. Flynt, P. Balunaini, and S. Vedula. Personalized learning pathways: Enabling intervention creation and tracking. IBM Journal of Re- search and Development, 59(6):4–1, 2015

    2015

  59. [66]

    D. E. Salinas-Navarro, E. Vilalta-Perdomo, R. Michel-Villarreal, and L. Montesinos. Using generative artificial intelligence tools to explain and enhance experiential learning for authentic assessment. Education Sciences, 14(1):83, 2024

    2024

  60. [67]

    Schiliro, N

    F. Schiliro, N. Moustafa, I. Razzak, and A. Beheshti. Deepcog: a trustworthy deep learning-based human cog- nitive privacy framework in industrial policing. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(7):7485–7493, 2022

    2022

  61. [68]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Biessmann, and T. Teubner. Transparency and trust in artificial intelligence systems. Journal of Decision Systems, 29(4):260–278, 2020

    2020

  62. [69]

    Shabani, A

    N. Shabani, A. Beheshti, H. Farhood, M. Bower, M. Garrett, and H. Alinejad-Rokny. A rule-based approach for mining creative thinking patterns from big educational data. AppliedMath, 3(1):243–267, 2023

    2023

  63. [70]

    Shabani, J

    N. Shabani, J. Wu, A. Beheshti, Q. Z. Sheng, J. Foo, V. Haghighi, A. Hanif, and M. Shahabikargar. A com- prehensive survey on graph summarization with graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intel- ligence, 2024

    2024

  64. [71]

    Shahriar, S

    S. Shahriar, S. Allana, S. M. Hazratifard, and R. Dara. A survey of privacy risks and mitigation strategies in the artificial intelligence life cycle. IEEE Access, 11:61829–61854, 2023

    2023

  65. [72]

    Shang and F

    C. Shang and F. You. Data analytics and machine learning for smart process manufacturing: Recent advances and perspectives in the big data era. Engineering, 5(6):1010–1016, 2019

    2019

  66. [73]

    K. K. Sharma, M. Tomar, and A. Tadimarri. Ai-driven marketing: Transforming sales processes for success in the digital age. Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (online), 2(2):250– 260, 2023

    2023

  67. [74]

    N. A. Sharma, R. R. Chand, Z. Buksh, A. S. Ali, A. Hanif, and A. Beheshti. Explainable ai frameworks: Navi- gating the present challenges and unveiling innovative applications. Algorithms, 17(6):227, 2024

    2024

  68. [75]

    Shokrollahi, S

    Y. Shokrollahi, S. Yarmohammadtoosky, M. M. Nikahd, P. Dong, X. Li, and L. Gu. A comprehensive review of generative ai in healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00795, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  69. [76]

    B. P. Singh and A. Joshi. Ethical considerations in ai development. In The Ethical Frontier of AI and Data Analysis, pages 156–179. IGI Global, 2024

    2024

  70. [77]

    B. L. Smith and J. T. MacGregor. What is collaborative learning, 1992

    1992

  71. [78]

    N. A. Smuha. The eu approach to ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Computer Law Re- view International, 20(4):97–106, 2019

    2019

  72. [79]

    Sobhanmanesh, A

    F. Sobhanmanesh, A. Beheshti, N. Nouri, N. M. Chapparo, S. Raj, and R. A. George. A cognitive model for technology adoption. Algorithms, 16(3):155, 2023

    2023

  73. [80]

    Su and W

    J. Su and W. Yang. Unlocking the power of chatgpt: A framework for applying generative ai in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3):355–366, 2023

    2023

  74. [81]

    Supangat, M

    S. Supangat, M. Bin Saringat, G. Kusnanto, and A. Andrianto. Churn prediction on higher education data with fuzzy logic algorithm. SISFORMA, 8(1):22–29, 2021

    2021

  75. [82]

    van der Maaten and G

    L. van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(86):2579–2605, 2008

    2008

  76. [83]

    K. VanLehn. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational psychologist, 46(4):197–221, 2011

    2011

  77. [84]

    Vassiliadis, A

    P. Vassiliadis, A. Simitsis, and E. Baikousi. A taxonomy of etl activities. In Proceedings of the ACM twelfth international workshop on Data warehousing and OLAP, pages 25–32, 2009

    2009

  78. [85]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. At- tention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, page 6000–6010, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017. Cu...

    2017

  79. [87]

    S. Wang, X. Li, Q. Z. Sheng, and A. Beheshti. Performance analysis and optimization on scheduling stochastic cloud service requests: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 19(3):3587–3602, 2022

    2022

  80. [88]

    X. Wang, L. Li, S. C. Tan, L. Yang, and J. Lei. Preparing for ai-enhanced education: Conceptualizing and empirically examining teachers’ ai readiness. Computers in Human Behavior, 146:107798, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    J. Xie, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi. Unsupervised deep embedding for clustering analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 478–487. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  82. [90]

    J. Xu, B. Xu, P. Wang, S. Zheng, G. Tian, J. Zhao, and B. Xu. Self-taught convolutional neural networks for short text clustering. Neural Networks, 88:22–31, 2017

    2017

  83. [91]

    Yenduri, M

    G. Yenduri, M. Ramalingam, G. C. Selvi, Y. Supriya, G. Srivastava, P. K. R. Maddikunta, G. D. Raj, R. H. Jhaveri, B. Prabadevi, W. Wang, et al. Gpt (generative pre-trained transformer)–a comprehensive review on enabling technologies, potential applications, emerging challenges...

    2024

  84. [92]

    X. Zhai, X. Chu, C. S. Chai, M. S. Y. Jong, A. Istenic, M. Spector, J.-B. Liu, J. Yuan, and Y. Li. A review of artificial intelligence (ai) in education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity, 2021(1):8812542, 2021

    2010

  85. [93]

    Zhang, F

    D. Zhang, F. Nan, X. Wei, S.-W. Li, H. Zhu, K. McKeown, R. Nallapati, A. O. Arnold, and B. Xiang. Sup- porting clustering with contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Lang...

    2021

  86. [94]

    Zhang and Y

    X. Zhang and Y. LeCun. Text understanding from scratch. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.01710, pages 1–10, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  87. [95]

    G. Zhao, Y. Li, and Q. Xu. From emotion ai to cognitive ai. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.