MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939099005 · doi:10.60692/m7hdm-s4m11

Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Natural Language Processing Techniques for Educational Applications

2018· article· en· W6939099005 on OpenAlex

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

VenueGreater South Information System · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComprehensionCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Set (abstract data type)Reading comprehensionInterpretation (philosophy)Semantic interpretationNatural languageIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a technique for generating complex reading comprehension questions from a discourse that are more useful than factual ones derived from assertions.Our system produces a set of generallevel questions using coherence relations.These evaluate comprehension abilities like comprehensive analysis of the text and its structure, correct identification of the author's intent, thorough evaluation of stated arguments; and deduction of the high-level semantic relations that hold between text spans.Experiments performed on the RST-DT corpus allow us to conclude that our system possesses a strong aptitude for generating intricate questions.These questions are capable of effectively assessing student interpretation of text.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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