MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exam Questions Classification Based on Bloom's Taxonomy: Approaches and Techniques

2020· article· en· W3107628270 on OpenAlexaff
Karima Makhlouf, Lobna Amouri, Nada Chaabane, Nahla El-Haggar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)Computer sciencePreprocessorArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingData scienceMachine learningInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most popular guidelines used to write and evaluate the exam questions is Bloom's Taxonomy (BT). Since the past recent years, many researchers have worked on the automation of exam question classification into BT. This paper gives a through overview of the standard approaches and techniques used in question classification (QC) into BT cognitive levels including the preprocessing, the dimensionality reduction, the classification and the evaluation stages. A comparison of some recent works related to the subject is also presented in this study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0190.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.357
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.032 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207