Identification of conflicting questions in the PARES system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Student testing and knowledge assessment is a significant aspect of the learning process. In a number of cases, it is expedient not to present the exact same test to all learners all the time (Pritchett, 1999). This may be desired so that cheating in the exam is made harder to carry out or so that the learners can take several practice tests on the same subject as part of the course.</p><p><br />This study presents an e-testing platform, namely PARES, which aims to provide assessment services to academic staff by facilitating the creation and management of question banks and powering the delivery of nondeterministically generated test suites. PARES uses a conflict detection algorithm based on the vector space model to compute the similarity between questions and exclude questions which are deemed to have an unacceptably large similarity from appearing in the same test suite. The conflict detection algorithm and a statistical evaluation of its accuracy are presented. Evaluation results show that PARES succeeds in detecting question types at about 90% and its efficiency can be further increased through continuing education and enrichment of the system’s correlation vocabulary.<br /><br /></p><p> </p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".