More efficient processes for creating automated essay scoring frameworks: A demonstration of two algorithms
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
Automated essay scoring (AES) has emerged as a secondary or as a sole marker for many high-stakes educational assessments, in native and non-native testing, owing to remarkable advances in feature engineering using natural language processing, machine learning, and deep-neural algorithms. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and the performance of two AES frameworks, each based on machine learning with deep language features, or complex language features, and deep neural algorithms. More specifically, support vector machines (SVMs) in conjunction with Coh-Metrix features were used for a traditional AES model development, and the convolutional neural networks (CNNs) approach was used for more contemporary deep-neural model development. Then, the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional and contemporary models under different circumstances (e.g., types of the rubric, length of the essay, and the essay type) were tested. The results were evaluated using the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) score and compared with the agreement between the human raters. The results indicated that the CNNs model performs better, meaning that it produced more comparable results to the human raters than the Coh-Metrix + SVMs model. Moreover, the CNNs model also achieved state-of-the-art performance in most of the essay sets with a high average QWK score.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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