MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391227797 · doi:10.1111/emip.12590

Using OpenAI GPT to Generate Reading Comprehension Items

2024· article· en· W4391227797 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Measurement Issues and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionComprehensionReading (process)SentenceComputer scienceCognitionNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSample (material)PsychologyCognitive psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study is to introduce and evaluate a method for generating reading comprehension items using template‐based automatic item generation. To begin, we describe a new model for generating reading comprehension items called the text analysis cognitive model assessing inferential skills across different reading passages. Next, the text analysis cognitive model is used to generate reading comprehension items where examinees are required to read a passage and identify the irrelevant sentence. The sentences for the generated passages were created using OpenAI GPT‐3.5. Finally, the quality of the generated items was evaluated. The generated items were reviewed by three subject‐matter experts. The generated items were also administered to a sample of 1,607 Grade‐8 students. The correct options for the generated items produced a similar level of difficulty and yielded strong discrimination power while the incorrect options served as effective distractors. Implications of augmented intelligence for item development are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.186 · 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