Syntactic, Semantic and Sentiment Analysis: The Joint Effect on Automated Essay Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual grading of essays by humans is time-consuming and likely to be susceptible to inconsistencies and inaccuracies. In recent years, an abundance of research has been done to automate essay evaluation processes, yet little has been done to take into consideration the syntax, semantic coherence and sentiments of the essay's text together. Our proposed system incorporates not just the rule-based grammar and surface level coherence check but also includes the semantic similarity of the sentences. We propose to use Graph-based relationships within the essay's content and polarity of opinion expressions. Semantic similarity is determined between each statement of the essay to form these Graph-based spatial relationships and novel features are obtained from it. Our algorithm uses 23 salient features with high predictive power, which is less than the current systems while considering every aspect to cover the dimensions that a human grader focuses on. Fewer features help us get rid of the redundancies of the data so that the predictions are based on more representative features and are robust to noisy data. The prediction of the scores is done with neural networks using the data released by the ASAP competition held by Kaggle. The resulting agreement between human grader's score and the system's prediction is measured using Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK). Our system produces a QWK of 0.793.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".