Oto, a generic and extensible tool for marking programming assignments
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 Marking programming assignments in programming courses involves a lot of work: each program must be tested, the source code must be read and evaluated, etc. With the large classes encountered nowadays, the feedback provided to students through marking is thus rather limited, and often late. Tools providing support for marking programming assignments do exist, ranging from support for administrative aspects through automation of program testing or support for source code evaluation based on metrics. In this paper, we introduce a tool, called Oto, that provides support for submission and marking of assignments. Oto aims at reducing the workload associated with the marking task. Oto also aims at providing timely feedback to the students, including feedback before the final submission. Furthermore, the tool has been designed to be generic and extensible , so that the marking process for a specific assignment can easily be customized and the tool can be extended with various marking components (modules) that allows it to deal with various aspects of marking (testing, style, structure, etc.) and with programs written in various programming languages. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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