MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392353984 · doi:10.18280/ria.380122

Hybrid Approach for Automated Answer Scoring Using Semantic Analysis in Long Hindi Text

2024· article· en· W4392353984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deepender, Tarandeep Singh Walia

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHindiNatural language processingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the case of the Hindi language, the technology that underpins automated scoring is still in its infancy in terms of its development.These systems have shown much better accuracy and reliability in their operations Nowadays, several studies are being carried out in addition to saving individuals money and time.with the intention of providing nuanced feedback on grammatical as well as semantic problems.This paper's main objective is to develop a hybrid methodology for automated answer scoring using semantic analysis for long Hindi text.Deep Learning and Recurrent Neural Network method have been taken into consideration throughout this research study.The ability of recurrent neural networks, to learn the temporal dependency of sequential input gives them an edge over feed forward neural networks, when it comes to the scoring of musical responses.Research work has integrated PSO and Roberta to improve accuracy.Based on the research findings, the recommended approach has been shown to outperform the currently recognized revolutionary techniques.It shows that the Hybrid PSO-Roberta based deep learning strategy performs better than the old system in terms of precision, recall, and f1 score.It reduce the amount of paperwork they need to do, teachers won't have to be concerned about any evaluation issues going away either.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207