Learning to Score: A Coding System for Constructed Response Items via Interactive Clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructed response items that require the student to give more detailed and elaborate responses are widely applied in large-scale assessments. However, the hand-craft scoring with a rubric for massive responses is labor-intensive and impractical due to rater subjectivity and answer variability. The automatic response coding method, such as the automatic scoring of short answers, has become a critical component of the learning and assessment system. In this paper, we propose an interactive coding system called ASSIST to efficiently score student responses with expert knowledge and then generate an automatic score classifier. First, the ungraded responses are clustered to generate specific codes, representative responses, and indicator words. The constraint set based on feedback from experts is taken as training data in metric learning to compensate for machine bias. Meanwhile, the classifier from responses to code is trained according to the clustering results. Second, the experts review each coded cluster with the representative responses and indicator words to score a rating. The coded cluster and score pairs will be validated to ensure inter-rater reliability. Finally, the classifier is available for scoring a new response with out-of-distribution detection, which is based on the similarity between response representation and class proxy, i.e., the weight of class in the last linear layer of the classifier. The originality of the system developed stems from the interactive response clustering procedure, which involves expert feedback and an adaptive automatic classifier that can identify new response classes. The proposed system is evaluated on our real-world assessment dataset. The results of the experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed system in saving human effort and improving scoring performance. The average improvements in clustering quality and scoring accuracy are 14.48% and 18.94%, respectively. Additionally, we reported the inter-rater reliability, out-of-distribution rate, and cluster statistics, before and after interaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".