Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although E-learning has advanced considerably in the last decade, some of its aspects, such as E-testing, are still in the development phase. Authoring tools and test banks for E-tests are becoming an integral and indispensable part of E-learning platforms and with the implementation of E-learning standards, such as IMS QTI, E-testing material can be easily shared and reused across various platforms. With the knowledge available for re-use and exam automation comes a new challenge: making sure that created exams are free of conflicts. A Conflict exists in an exam if at least two questions within that exam are redundant in content, and/or if at least one question reveals the answer to another question within the same exam. In this paper we propose using Information Retrieval techniques to detect conflicts within an exam. Our solution, ICE (Identification of Conflicts in Exams), is based on the vector space model relying on tfidf weighing and the cosine function to calculate similarity. ICE also combines the hybrid recommendation techniques of the EQRS (Exam Question Recommender System) in order to propose replacements for conflicting questions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".