AI-Driven Automated Assessment and Evaluation System Using NLP and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated Evaluation and Assessment System is aimed at changing the way educational assessment is viewed. The assessment will be automated through artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for various types of content in grading; hence it will be efficient, scalable, and fair. Some of the major features of this system include dynamic as well as static analysis, comparative methods like abstract syntax trees and control flow graphs, and real-time feedback for supporting customized learning. The AESA is intended to eliminate all the relevant limitations of a manual mode such as bias, subjectivity, and time inefficiencies. Such a structure enables the modularized architecture to coup with user-friendly interfaces, delay-aggravated data management, and advanced evaluation models to give up a better overall assessment experience. The program is also thorough with features such as plagiarism detection, which leads to an enhanced integrity of academic work. This system combines automation and human oversight in order to bring forward better learning outcomes, lesser strain on the administrative card, and fairer educational practices. Rainier's study is an indication of the promise that AEAS (Automated Evaluation and Assessment Systems) holds in shaping the future of modern education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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".