MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Educational Technology and Responsible Automated Essay Scoring in the Generative AI Era

2024· book-chapter· en· W4401877476 on OpenAlex
Hieu Thai Trung, Minh Nhat Nguyen, Truong Thanh Hung Nguyen, Diem Thi Hong Vo, Binh Nguyen Thanh, Khang X. Nguyen, Son Tung Ha, Tam Vi An Le

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

VenuePractice, progress, and proficiency in sustainability · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarArtificial intelligenceHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative AI-driven automated essay scoring (AES) is expected to revolutionize personalized education by offering customized feedback to students. However, the reliability of these systems is currently undermined by inherent limitations, such as the tendency for “hallucination,” where the AI generates factually incorrect or irrelevant information. To mitigate these issues and bolster the trustworthiness of AES, this chapter argues that the implementation of explainable AI (XAI) is crucial. Suitable XAI algorithms could make the GenAI's decision-making process transparent, allowing educators and students to understand and trust the feedback provided, thus ensuring the effective integration of AI in education. Furthermore, the chapter outlines several recommendations for achieving a responsible GenAI-driven AES system.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.390 · 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