Transforming Educational Assessment: Insights Into the Use of ChatGPT and Large Language Models in Grading
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
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the field of education has prompted significant advancements, particularly in the domain of assessment and grading. This research delves into the potential of large language models, specifically OpenAI's ChatGPT, in simulating human-like interactions and accurately grading student assessments. To accomplish its objectives, the study compares the grading performance of ChatGPT with that of human correctors in a sample of second-year university students. The research findings indicate only a moderate correlation between the grades assigned by ChatGPT and those of human correctors, suggesting nuanced capabilities in providing comprehensive feedback and streamlining the grading process. While the study highlights the benefits of AI integration in education, it also addresses potential risks, including the exacerbation of educational inequalities and the limitations associated with AI's automated nature. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding AI's role in education, emphasizing the importance of striking a balance between AI and human instruction for optimal educational outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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