Automatic identification of knowledge‐transforming content in argument essays developed from multiple sources
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
Abstract Developing knowledge‐transforming skills in writing may help students increase learning by actively building knowledge, regardless of the domain. However, many undergraduate students struggle to transform knowledge when drafting essays based on multiple sources. Writing analytics can be used to scaffold knowledge transforming as writers bring evidence to bear in supporting claims. We investigated how to automatically identify sentences representing knowledge transformation in argumentative essays. A synthesis of cognitive theories of writing and Bloom's typology identified 22 linguistic features to model processes of knowledge transforming in a corpus of 38 undergraduates' essays. Findings indicate undergraduates mostly paraphrase or copy information from multiple sources rather than engage deeply with sources' content. Eight linguistic features were important for discriminating evidential sentences as telling versus transforming source knowledge. We trained a machine learning algorithm that accurately classified nearly three of four evidential sentences as knowledge‐telling or knowledge‐transforming, offering potential for use in future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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