MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200387115 · doi:10.18280/ria.350609

Automatic Short Answer Grading System in Indonesian Language Using BERT Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W4200387115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marvin Chandra Wijaya

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEdcuational Technology Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConfusion matrixConfusionGrading (engineering)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingIndonesianMachine learningEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A system capable of automatically grading short answers is a very useful tool. The system can be created using machine learning algorithms. In this study, a machine system using BERT is proposed. BERT is an open-source system that is set to English by default. The use of languages other than English Language is a challenge to be implemented in BERT. This study proposes a novel system to implement Indonesian Language in the BERT system for automatic grading of short answers. The experimental results were measured using two measuring instruments: Cohen's Kappa coefficient and the Confusion Matrix. The result of measuring the BERT output of the implemented system has a Cohen Kappa coefficient of 0.75, a precision of 0.94, a recall of 0.96, a Specificity of 0.76 and an F1 Score of 0.95. Based on the measurement results, it can be seen that the implementation of the automatic short answer grading system in Indonesian Language using BERT machine learning has been successful.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicEdcuational Technology SystemsFrench-language works237,207