AI-experiments in education: An AI-driven randomized controlled trial for higher education research
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 This study presents a novel approach contributing to our understanding of the design, development, and implementation AI-based systems for conducting double-blind online randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for higher education research. The process of the entire interaction with the participants ( n = 1193) and their allocation to test and control groups was executed seamlessly by our AI system, without human intervention. In this fully automated experiment, we systematically examined eight hypotheses. The AI-experiment strengthened five of these hypotheses, while not accepting three of the factors previously acknowledged in the literature as influential in students’ choices of universities. We showcased how AI can efficiently interview participants and collect their input, offering robust evidence through an RCT (Gold standard) to establish causal relationships between interventions and their outcomes. This approach may enable researchers and industry practitioners to collect data from large samples on which such experiments can be conducted with and by AI to produce statistically reproducible, reliable, and generalizable results in an efficient, rigorous and ethical way.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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