The Effect of Peer Assessment on the Evaluation Process of Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at finding out the effect of peer assessment on the evaluation process of students. The hypothesis underlying this study is that assessment is an integral part of the learning process, which should play an important role in the educational model. The current study will emphasize the importance of using peer assessment as a tool to engage students in the evaluation process, clarify the role of peer assessment in promoting student learning, diversify the scope of the evaluation through the frameworks of theory and methodology to get to understand the uses and limitations of peer assessment as a tool for assessment, and discuss the goals and benefits that can be achieved by the students from practicing peer assessment in accordance with scientific standards and bases, which emphasize active participation of the students in their learning and responsibility. Additionally, this study will check the credibility of peer assessments as a suitable tool in the assessment process. Findings show that there is a statistically significant relationship between the assessment of peers to each other, as well as between peer assessment and teacher assessment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it