Using Automated Procedures to Score Educational Essays Written in Three Languages
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 The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate a multilingual automated essay scoring (AES) system for grading essays in three languages. Two different sentence embedding models were evaluated within the AES system, multilingual BERT (mBERT) and language‐agnostic BERT sentence embedding (LaBSE). German, Italian, and Czech essays were holistically scored using the Common European Framework of Reference of Languages. The AES system with mBERT produced results that were consistent with human raters overall across all three language groups. The system also produced accurate predictions for some but not all of the score levels within each language. The AES system with LaBSE produced results that were even more consistent with the human raters overall across all three language groups compared to mBERT. In addition, the system produced accurate predictions for the majority of the score levels within each language. The performance differences between mBERT and LaBSE can be explained by considering how each language embedding model is implemented. Implications of this study for educational testing are also 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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