Systematic Review Flow (PRISMA 2020)
Transparent flow of article identification, LLM screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and inclusion into living synthesis with expert validation.
✓ PRISMA funnel conservation verified (100% stage closure)
Zero data leakage: n_in = n_out + ∑n_excl + n_pending verified across identification, screening, eligibility, and synthesis.
ID: 16114 →
Screen: 15131 →
Eligible: 2267 →
Included: 75
Expert Validation & Taste Loop
Independent of the formal PRISMA selection rules: editorial verdicts by the curator to calibrate quality and active learning.
👍 10
Approved in digest
(14 total in corpus)
👎 29
Rejected with reason
(1 pre / 18 post analysis)
Breakdown of expert rejection reasons:
not_novel: 4
not_for_educators: 3
off_topic: 13
too_narrow: 2
duplicate: 5
other: 1
weak_method: 1
📋 Structured Review Summary (PRISMA 2020: Item 2)
Background: Living systematic review of Large Language Models (LLMs) and autonomous agents in higher education. Focuses on engineering countermeasures to academic dishonesty and redesign of assessment.
Objectives: Systematic identification, screening, and synthesis of empirical evidence regarding reliability, methodological rigor, and consensus challenges in higher education GenAI integration.
Eligibility Criteria: Scholarly works with open-access full text; topic relevance R ≥ 4.0; weighted final score ≥ 5.0.
Information Sources: Multi-register tracking: arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, plus forward/backward citation loops (depth 1–2).
Risk of Bias & Quality: Multi-criteria methodological rigor (M, 0–10). Screening reliability validated via dual evaluation: Gwet's AC1, stratified recall, and ROC AUC.
Synthesis & Included: Included n = 75 verified works into the living review with extracted claims, limitations, and empirical findings.
🎯 PICO / PECO Search & Eligibility Framework (PRISMA 2020: Items 4–5)
| Component | Protocol Definition | Inclusion / Exclusion Boundaries |
|---|---|---|
| P (Population) | Higher education: universities, colleges, undergraduate/graduate students, instructors, and examiners. | Included: higher/tertiary education. Excluded: purely K-12 primary education without transferability. |
| I / E (Intervention / Exposure) | Use of modern LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Llama) and agentic frameworks for exam solving, tutoring, or automated grading. | Included: empirical testing and deployment of LLMs. Excluded: legacy non-generative ML or symbolic AI. |
| C (Comparator) | Traditional non-AI assessments, human baselines, or comparative evaluation of engineering defenses (guardrails, multi-agent validation). | Included: baselines, cohort comparisons, or countermeasures. Excluded: purely speculative essays without comparator. |
| O (Outcomes) | Task performance, exam breach rates, countermeasure resilience, shift in assessment rubrics, cognitive learning outcomes. | Included: empirical accuracy, resilience, rubric difficulty, psychometrics. Excluded: unverified claims. |
| S (Study Design) | Empirical studies: controlled experiments (RCT), quasi-experiments, case studies, psychometric evaluations, benchmark audits. | Included: peer-reviewed/preprint research with empirical data. Excluded: opinion blogs, press releases. |
* Footnote *: Prefilter Mathematical Model, Indicators & Scoring Formula (Rubric v2.3)
Rubric Indicators & Parameters
| Symbol | Indicator Name | Weight / Value |
|---|---|---|
| M | Methodological Rigor | wM = 0.32 |
| E | Engineering Countermeasures | wE = 0.25 |
| C | Consensus Challenge | wC = 0.43 |
| N | Novelty | wN = 0.00 |
| R | Topic Relevance (0–10) | Rmin = 4.0, Rfull = 7.0 |
| Gate | Binary Scope Gate | PASS / FAIL |
| Поріг | Pass Threshold | Score ≥ 5.0 |
Relevance R is a multiplier, not a summand: papers with R < R_min receive 0, and high-quality off-topic papers cannot outrank topical ones.
Scoring Formulae (MathML Core)
1. Final Prefilter Score:
2. Weighted Quality Score (Q):
3. Logical Prefilter Screening Criterion:
Methods & reporting (PRISMA 2020 items 1–15, 23–27)
Review type, objective, eligibility (1, 3–5)
Living systematic review: a daily-updated, automation-assisted selection. It is a literature-selection tool, not a published review with meta-analysis.
Topic (given to the model): Validity of educational assessment under generative AI and how to keep it (AI-resistant / AI-resilient assessment). Core: how generative AI changes what grades and test scores mean (validity arguments in the sense of Kane and Messick), assessment redesign, and quantitative methods that detect or model the distortion in assessment and learning data: item response theory, differential item functioning between humans and LLMs, item parameter drift, rater drift, item compromise and preknowledge, score shifts under unsupervised or online conditions (proctored vs unproctored exams, cheating, grade inflation), change-point and concept-drift detection, LLMs as test takers or raters, computerized adaptive testing and automated test assembly. Computational, statistical and engineering work is preferred, but a solid conceptual or empirical education study of assessment under generative AI belongs here too. Detectors of AI-generated text and watermarking are only adjacent to the topic. The audience is university educators and researchers: work about primary and secondary school (K-12) is off topic unless its findings or methods clearly transfer to higher education.
- Include: a scholarly article with topic relevance R ≥ 4.0, final score ≥ 5.0; a legal open-access full text that was actually read.
- Exclude: non-articles (datasets, code, errata), duplicates and preprints of published works, retracted works, K-12 with no transfer to higher education, works without full text (paywall, fetch errors), expert-rejected works (👎, reason recorded).
- Manual additions (origin = manual) bypass score screening but go through eligibility assessment.
Information sources & last searched (6)
| Channel | Records | Last record |
|---|---|---|
search — arXiv, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC | 14354 | 2026-11-04 14:23 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1733 | 2026-11-04 10:23 |
manual — added manually | 27 | 2026-10-07 12:05 |
Citation candidates take metadata from OpenAlex; Crossref/Unpaywall supply DOIs, versions and open PDFs.
Search strategy (7)
Current search version: v1.0. A work matches if its title/abstract hits a term from EVERY group of at least one query (OR within a group; case-insensitive, word boundaries).
Queries (groups):
education × ai; psychometrics × ai; integrity × education; drift × education; drift × psychometrics
education: education, educational, student, learner, teacher, lecturer, classroom, university, higher education, school, curriculum, assessment, exam, examination, examinee, test taker, test score, grading, homework, coursework, online course, essay, academic integrity, academic misconduct, plagiarism, cheating, e-learning, MOOC
ai: generative AI, GenAI, large language model, LLM, ChatGPT, GPT-4, chatbot, AI-generated, AI-assisted, AI-resistant, AI-resilient, AI tool, artificial intelligence
integrity: proctoring, proctored, unproctored, non-proctored, remote proctoring, online exam, online test, online testing, exam integrity, testing integrity, academic integrity, academic dishonesty, cheating, contract cheating, grade inflation
psychometrics: item response theory, IRT, Rasch, psychometric, educational measurement, educational testing, differential item functioning, computerized adaptive testing, adaptive testing, automated test assembly, knowledge tracing, automated scoring, automated essay scoring, validity argument, construct validity, assessment validity, predictive validity
drift: parameter drift, dynamic item response, item parameter drift, rater drift, severity drift, concept drift, change point, change-point detection, item compromise, preknowledge, item exposure, test security, aberrant response, person-fit, differential item functioning
Semantic Scholar phrases: assessment validity generative AI; AI-resilient assessment higher education; AI-resistant assessment design; generative AI exam performance natural experiment; differential item functioning large language models humans; LLM as test taker item response theory; proctored versus unproctored online exam scores; generative AI grade inflation; item parameter drift detection; item compromise preknowledge detection; concept drift knowledge tracing; change point detection educational testing
arXiv: cs.CY, cs.CL, cs.HC, cs.AI, cs.LG, stat.AP, stat.ME. Result caps per query: OpenAlex 50, Semantic Scholar 25, ERIC 25. Citation searching: depth 1 from read and 👍 works, depth 2 from 👍 only; neighbours of 👍 works bypass the lexical filter.
| Search version | Records (search) | First | Last |
|---|---|---|---|
v1.0 | 14354 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-04 |
Selection process & automation (8, 9, 11)
- Abstract screening: a single automated reviewer — an LLM (gemini-3.1-flash-lite, gemini-3.5-flash-lite), batches of 20, models alternate; every evaluation is stored (prefilter_evaluations) with model and rubric version.
- Full-text analysis and data collection: gemini-3.8-flash, gemini-3.7-flash, gemini-3.6-flash, prompt
v2.1. Only after PDF→Markdown conversion; the model is never called without full text. - Verification: code checks every quote against the text (exact match after normalisation); unconfirmed claims are discarded.
- Human: no independent second reviewer. The owner gives 👍/👎 verdicts on a sample (50% near threshold, 30% top, 20% random); they steer the queue and few-shot examples but do not change the score.
- Data items (10): summary, method/data/sample, claims, limitations, study design (assessment_design, psychometric_modeling, natural_experiment, detector_evaluation, survey, rct, quasi_experiment, qualitative, theoretical, review, other), tags, rubric criteria.
- Risk of bias (11): not assessed formally (RoB, GRADE not applied); criterion M (methodological rigor, 0–10) is a ranking score, not a RoB tool. No effect measures or meta-analysis (12, 13d–f, 15): synthesis is qualitative, via article analyses and tags.
| Screening model | Scored |
|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | 7492 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 7118 |
— | 587 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 150 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 101 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 94 |
Scoring rubric v2.3 (0–10 anchors)
The model scores 0–10 per criterion; the anchors below are embedded in the prompt. Formula and weights are in the footnote above. Changing anchors or weights without a new version is blocked by a hash check.
| Criterion | Weight | 2 | 5 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic relevance (R) | × min(1, R/7.0) | No link to education or assessment: image, audio or model watermarking, model IP protection, general NLP benchmarks, AI in industry. | Adjacent: generative AI in education without an assessment focus; academic integrity with no evidence on assessment outcomes; detectors of AI-generated text or of student AI use; general psychometrics (adaptive testing, test assembly, IRT) with no drift, validity or AI angle. | Core: validity of assessment under generative AI (what grades and scores mean when AI is available); how grades shift under unsupervised conditions or cheating (proctored vs unproctored exams, grade inflation); AI-resistant or AI-resilient assessment design; quantitative methods that detect or model distorted assessment or learning data (DIF between humans and LLMs, item parameter or rater drift, item compromise/preknowledge, change-point or concept-drift detection, LLMs as test takers or raters). |
| Methodological rigor (M) | 0.32 | Vague evaluation, convenience sample of a few dozen, self-report only, no control group or baseline. | Clear dataset or sample (hundreds), standard metrics or validated instruments, comparison with baselines or a control group. | Randomized/controlled or preregistered, large or multi-site/multilingual data, adversarial or robustness checks, effect sizes with uncertainty. |
| Engineering countermeasures (E) | 0.25 | No method or countermeasure: describes impact, attitudes or policy only. | A concrete method or countermeasure with an evaluation: statistical test or model, detector, scoring procedure, or an assessment design tried on real cohorts. | A rigorous, reusable method: formal model with guarantees or error control, open code, validated on both real and simulated data. |
| Consensus challenge (C) | 0.43 | Reconfirms standard wisdom. | Nuances the consensus (e.g. detectors fail under mild paraphrasing; AI use does not harm an outcome it is assumed to harm). | Directly refutes high-profile claims with rigorous evidence. |
| Novelty (N) | 0.00 | Replicates well-known findings (another survey of student attitudes to ChatGPT, another test of one detector on a handful of prompts). | New dataset, benchmark, population or setting, or a previously untried technique. | Fundamentally new attack or defence, a theoretical/impossibility result, or a finding that changes how the field frames the problem. |
The model interpolates between anchors. The deep-analysis score is computed by code with the same formula from criteria_breakdown.
| Rubric version | Papers scored |
|---|---|
v2.0 | 261 |
v2.1 | 183 |
v2.2 | 20 |
v2.3 (current) | 14733 |
Screening Validation: Reliability & Agreement Metrics
Reference standard: expert verdicts. Full PRISMA systematic review metrics computed: recall, specificity, NPV, F₁, F₂, ROC AUC, DOR, paradox-immune Gwet's AC₁, and continuous score agreement.
| Measure | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Seed-set recall | 50% (1/2), 95% CI 9–91% | Share of manually added 👍 works (bypassing screening) scoring ≥ threshold 5.0. Unbiased sensitivity estimate on this set. |
| Estimated corpus recall | 100% (100–100%) | Post-stratified by score band from judged works; conservative interval. Relevant works missed ≈ 0 (0–0). Not measured (too few verdicts in band): 12891 screened-out works. |
| Sensitivity / Recall | 100% (12/12), 95% CI 76–100% | Share of relevant works passed by screening: TP / (TP + FN). |
| Specificity | 20% (4/20), 95% CI 8–42% | Share of irrelevant works rejected by screening: TN / (TN + FP). |
| Precision / PPV | 43% (12/28), 95% CI 27–61% | Share of expert-approved among screening passes: TP / (TP + FP). |
| Negative Predictive Value (NPV) | 100% (4/4), 95% CI 51–100% | Share of truly irrelevant among screened-out works: TN / (TN + FN). Protects against losing relevant papers. |
| F-scores (F₁ and F₂) | F₁: 0.60 · F₂: 0.79 | F₂ weights recall twice as much as precision — critical safety metric against false exclusions in PRISMA. |
| Balanced Accuracy | 60.0% | Arithmetic mean of sensitivity and specificity, unaffected by class imbalance. |
| Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) | 6.82 | DOR = (TP · TN) / (FP · FN) with Haldane-Anscombe correction. Overall discriminative capability of screening. |
| ROC AUC | 0.65 (95% CI 0.43–0.84) | Probability a 👍 work outscores a 👎 one (0.5 = chance). CI computed via DeLong / Bootstrap. |
| Inter-Rater Agreement (Gwet's AC₁ & Cohen's κ) | — | Gwet's AC₁ is paradox-immune inter-rater agreement on double-scored works, robust to severe class imbalance (80-90% screening rejection). |
| Continuous Score Agreement |
MAD: — r Пірсона: — |
Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and Pearson r between scores of screening models on shared papers. |
| Score band | Works | Judged | 👍 | 👍 rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0–2.0 | 8334 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3485 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1072 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1236 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 977 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 30 | 2 (too few) | 2 | 100% |
| Screening model | Seed recall | AUC | Sens / Spec | Prec / NPV | F₁ / AC₁ | 👍 / 👎 (TP/FP/FN/TN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
50% (1/2), 95% CI 9–91% | 0.63 | 100% (12/12), 95% CI 76–100% / 16% (3/19), 95% CI 6–38% | 43% (12/28), 95% CI 27–61% / 100% (3/3), 95% CI 44–100% | 0.60 / 0.05 | 12 / 19 (12/16/0/3) |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite |
— | — | — / 100% (1/1), 95% CI 21–100% | — / 100% (1/1), 95% CI 21–100% | — / 1.00 | 0 / 1 (0/0/0/1) |
— |
— | — | — / — | — / — | — / — | 0 / 0 (0/0/0/0) |
To narrow intervals, judge works from lower score bands: /admin/taste includes 20% random picks. Metrics update automatically with each verdict.
Methodological Rigor & Study Designs (11, 18)
Methodological rigor M (0–10) is evaluated during full-text analysis. Study design distribution reflects verified empirical classifications.
Mean Rigor (M)
6.60 / 10
Analyzed papers: 610
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 316
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 277
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 17
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 236 |
other | 42 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 13 |
assessment_design | 157 |
natural_experiment | 4 |
quasi_experiment | 54 |
detector_evaluation | 41 |
survey | 7 |
review | 17 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 11 |
PRISMA 2020 27-Item Compliance Checklist
Full audit of compliance with PRISMA 2020 checklist (Page et al., 2021) for automated systematic reviews.
| № | Section / Item | Checklist Description | Status | Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title | Identify as living systematic review | ✓ Впроваджено | Page title, report metadata |
| 2 | Abstract | Structured summary (background, objectives, methods, results) | ✓ Впроваджено | #prisma-abstract block above |
| 3 | Rationale | Rationale in context of existing knowledge | ✓ Впроваджено | Topic description and rationale |
| 4 | Objectives | Explicit objectives using PICO / PECO | ✓ Впроваджено | #pico-framework table above |
| 5 | Eligibility criteria | Inclusion/exclusion criteria, language, dates | ✓ Впроваджено | Thresholds R, Score, Open Access |
| 6 | Information sources | Databases, registers, search dates | ✓ Впроваджено | arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, citations |
| 7 | Search strategy | Full search strategy, boolean filters, versions | ✓ Впроваджено | search_version, term groups, API limits |
| 8 | Selection process | Selection process, automation, independent screening | ✓ Впроваджено | LLM screening rotation + editorial taste loop |
| 9 | Data collection | Data collection from full-text reports | ✓ Впроваджено | PDF → MD parser, deep prompt v2.1 |
| 10a-b | Data items | List of outcomes and study characteristics | ✓ Впроваджено | Summary, sample, design, claims, countermeasures |
| 11 | Study risk of bias | Assessment of study methodological quality | ✓ Впроваджено | Rigor criterion M (0–10), quality distribution |
| 12 | Effect measures | Effect measures for outcomes | — Обґрунтовано N/A | Qualitative synthesis without meta-analytic pooled effects |
| 13a-f | Synthesis methods | Synthesis criteria and grouping methods | ✓ Впроваджено | Tag-based clustering, comparative study cards |
| 14 | Reporting bias | Assessment of reporting/publication bias | ✓ Впроваджено | Analysis of paywall exclusions & open access skew |
| 15 | Certainty assessment | Certainty assessment of body of evidence | ✓ Впроваджено | Automated quote grounding against full-text Markdown |
| 16 | Study selection | Selection results (flow diagram, counts) | ✓ Впроваджено | 100% stage conservation closure verified |
| 17 | Study characteristics | Characteristics of included studies table | ✓ Впроваджено | Interactive table with DOI, venue, year, tags |
| 18 | Risk of bias in studies | Risk of bias findings across studies | ✓ Впроваджено | Methodological rigor M & study designs table |
| 19 | Results of individual studies | Results for each individual study | ✓ Впроваджено | Public paper pages /doi/{doi} with full analysis |
| 20a-d | Results of syntheses | Results of syntheses & sub-groups | ✓ Впроваджено | Daily living editions, RSS feed, tag filters |
| 21 | Reporting biases | Results of reporting biases assessment | ✓ Впроваджено | Paywall n=320, retracted n=0 |
| 22 | Certainty of evidence | Summary of evidence certainty | ✓ Впроваджено | Gwet's AC₁, Cohen's κ, stratified recall, ROC AUC |
| 23a-d | Discussion | Discussion, limitations, implications | ✓ Впроваджено | Limitations section (23b, 23c) in methods |
| 24a-c | Registration & protocol | Registration, protocol availability, amendments | ✓ Впроваджено | Public repo, version history of search & rubric |
| 25 | Support | Financial & non-financial support | ✓ Впроваджено | Free API tiers declared in methods |
| 26 | Competing interests | Competing interests statement | ✓ Впроваджено | Declared in methods section |
| 27 | Data & code availability | Availability of data, analytical code, materials | ✓ Впроваджено | Export to CSV / JSON buttons, open-source code |
Limitations (23b, 23c)
- Open access only: paywalled papers never reach the synthesis, so the sample skews to open and preprint work.
- Screening ranks by quality and novelty rather than pure eligibility, so the sample skews towards counter-consensus work. Validity is measured against one expert (see above); a single LLM reviewer, model bias and version differences remain possible.
- The lexical filter and result caps can miss works with other terminology; sources skew English-language.
- Records scored under an older rubric version are not rescored automatically (see version table).
- Free Gemini quota: daily limits slow analysis; some selected works wait in the queue.
Registration, protocol, amendments, support, data (24–27)
- Registration: not registered. The protocol is the configuration (topic, queries, rubric, thresholds) in the project repository; it is reproduced in this block.
- Amendments: search versions (search_version) and rubric versions (rubric_version), tables above.
- Funding: none declared, free API tiers are used. Competing interests: none declared.
- Data: analyses and metadata are on article pages, RSS and sitemap; full texts are private (copyright) and not published.
Filter by Tags
Select one or more tags to refine the flow numbers and article corpus.
#psychometrics (99)
#Psychometrics (56)
#Item Response Theory (46)
#academic integrity (46)
#item response theory (37)
#Assessment Validity (34)
#assessment validity (34)
#higher education (34)
#Automated Essay Scoring (27)
#Generative AI (27)
#automated essay scoring (25)
#construct validity (25)
#IRT (24)
#Construct Validity (23)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#LLM as rater (19)
#generative AI (19)
#Automated Scoring (17)
#Large Language Models (17)
#Higher Education (16)
#assessment redesign (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#LLM Evaluation (15)
#large language models (14)
#AI-resilient assessment (13)
#LLM as Rater (13)
#assessment design (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#automated scoring (13)
#validity (13)
#academic_integrity (12)
#Assessment Redesign (11)
#ChatGPT (11)
#Prompt Engineering (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#benchmarking (11)
#differential item functioning (11)
#prompt engineering (11)
#GPT-4 (10)
#LLM-as-a-judge (10)
#LLMs as raters (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#Automated Item Generation (9)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (9)
#DIF (9)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#LLMs as Test Takers (9)
#concept drift (9)
#rater drift (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Differential Item Functioning (8)
#Knowledge Tracing (8)
#Validity (8)
#automated_essay_scoring (8)
#computerized adaptive testing (8)
#construct_validity (8)
#higher_education (8)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 751 | scored |
Brave New World?
CRC Press eBooks (2026) · doi:10.1201/9781003624981-1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 752 | scored |
Ethics and responsible practice in intelligence augmentation research
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4337/9781049408330.00016 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 753 | Screened Out |
Instructors’ Perceptions of Assessment Types and Strategies Used in Online Courses in Higher Education
Online Learning (2026) · doi:10.24059/olj.v30i2.4971 · v1.0 |
1.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 754 | scored |
AI-Resistant Strategies in the AI-Transformed Classroom: A Case Study in Higher Education (LDHE)
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.38140/ufs.32531847 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 755 | Screened Out |
Navigating AI Paraphrasing Tools in EFL Contexts: Investigating Quillbot’s Role in Enhancing Academic Writing Proficiency
International Journal of Language Education and Literature (2026) · doi:10.66720/k6csbe66 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 756 | scored |
LABOR MARKETS, INSTITUTIONS, AND RELIGION IN NIGERIA
Knowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) (2026) · doi:10.6082/jq8fr-w6m40 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 757 | Screened Out |
CAN VOICE-ACTIVATED AI ASSISTANTS IMPROVE COMPLETION RATES AND HEALTH AMONG PHD CANDIDATES?
EDULEARN proceedings (2026) · doi:10.21125/edulearn.2026.0333 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 758 | Screened Out |
AI Ethics as Epistemological Governance: A Systematic Literature Review on Knowledge and Authority in the Age of Generative AI
Language, Technology, and Social Media. (2026) · doi:10.70211/ltsm.3026-7196.403 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 759 | scored |
Measurement of the ethical organizational climate in higher education institutions
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) (2026) · doi:10.11591/ijere.v15i3.34851 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 760 | Screened Out |
The Impact of ChatGPT on Students’ Critical Thinking and Academic Integrity in Higher Education: Evidence from Vietnamese University Students
Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology (2026) · doi:10.61424/jcsit.v3i1.867 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 761 | Screened Out |
Embedding ethical governance in personal AI systems: design and evaluation of a user-centred oversight agent
AI and Ethics (2026) · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01193-1 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 762 | Screened Out |
From cognitive offloading to learning accountability erosion: how generative AI reshapes students’ epistemic trust and educational engagement
Interactive Learning Environments (2026) · doi:10.1080/10494820.2026.2680276 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 763 | Screened Out |
Preparing pre-service teachers for responsible generative AI use: Curriculum implications for ethics, privacy, and AI literacy
Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100617 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 764 | Screened Out |
Behavioral Analysis Using Machine Learning Algorithms in Online Proctored Assessments; The Potential of Mobile Proctoring in E-Assessments: A Review
Compiler (2026) · doi:10.28989/compiler.v15i1.3680 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 765 | scored |
Hypersexuality and binge eating in a non-clinical population: psychopathological factors evaluated according to a gender perspective
The Journal of Sexual Medicine (2025) · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf354 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 766 | Screened Out |
Adaptation and Validation of the ChatGPT Usage Scale in Indonesia: Exploring Challenges of High Usage Among Students
Jurnal Kependidikan Jurnal Hasil Penelitian dan Kajian Kepustakaan di Bidang Pendidikan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran (2025) · doi:10.33394/jk.v11i4.18058 · v1.0 |
1.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 767 | Screened Out |
A Digital Assistant for the Vocational Guidance of Peruvian Students Using the LLaMA
Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research (2025) · doi:10.48084/etasr.13482 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 768 | Screened Out |
AI-Driven Educational Assessments: Navigating the Intersection of Innovation, Equity, and Ethical Concerns for Future Learning
Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change (2025) · doi:10.64753/jcasc.v10i4.3021 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 769 | Screened Out |
Development and psychometric evaluation of the artificial intelligence ethical awareness scale
Ethics & Behavior (2025) · doi:10.1080/10508422.2025.2595433 · v1.0 |
1.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 770 | Screened Out |
LLM-Driven Effective Knowledge Tracing by Integrating Dual-Channel Difficulty
IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) (2025) · doi:10.1109/bigdata66926.2025.11402203 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 771 | Screened Out |
Development and Validation of an AI Literacy Scale for Pre-Service Teachers in Thailand
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning (2025) · doi:10.34190/ejel.24.1.3990 · v1.0 |
4.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 772 | scored |
An Agent‑Based Simulation of Politicized Topics Using Large Language Models: Algorithmic Personalization and Polarization on Social Media
Chinese Political Science Review (2025) · doi:10.1007/s41111-025-00326-x · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 773 | Not Article |
Performance of multimodal large language models in statistical map understanding: reading, analysis, and interpretation tasks
University of Warsaw Research Data Repository (2025) · doi:10.58132/gh6pgq · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 774 | Screened Out |
Fostering Inclusive Recruitment Processes for Neurodiverse Talent Using Adaptive Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assessments
IEEE AFRICON (2025) · doi:10.1109/africon66545.2025.11533815 · v1.0 |
3.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 775 | scored |
Development and Design of Intelligent Bots for an Effective Smart Education System using Improved Generative LLM Algorithms
International Conference on Mobile Networks and Wireless Communications (ICMNWC) (2025) · doi:10.1109/icmnwc66779.2025.11354386 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 776 | scored |
A Framework for Reproducible Testing of Complex Narrative Systems: A Case Study in Astrology
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2025) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17883100 · v1.0 |
6.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 777 | scored |
From screens to minds: the mediating role of psychological well-being between digital reading and AI anxiety
Frontiers in Psychology (2025) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1727759 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 778 | Screened Out |
Assessment and AI
Springer eBooks (2025) · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-11449-5_5 · v1.0 |
4.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 779 | scored |
СУЧАСНІ ПІДХОДИ ДО ПЕРСОНАЛІЗОВАНОГО ПЛАНУВАННЯ НАВЧАЛЬНИХ ТРАЄКТОРІЙ: ГРАФИ ЗНАНЬ, КОГНІТИВНА ДІАГНОСТИКА, НЕЙРОННІ МЕРЕЖІ ТА ВЕЛИКІ МОВНІ МОДЕЛІ
Herald of Khmelnytskyi National University Technical sciences (2025) · doi:10.31891/2307-5732-2025-359-40 · v1.0 |
5.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 780 | scored |
AI-AUGMENTED LEADERSHIP PROFILING: MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR IDENTIFYING TRANSFORMATIONAL AND ETHICAL LEADERSHIP TRAITS
TPM Testing, psychometrics, methodology in applied psychology (2025) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17904377 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 781 | Not Article |
Structured PREreview of "Occupational Resilience Measure (ORM 1.0): Justification, Development, and Possible Applications of a Novel Multidimensional Assessment"
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2025) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17904848 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 782 | Screened Out |
KUAI-Kids: Developing a Measurement Instrument for Children’s Knowledge, Use, and Attitudes Toward Generative AI Chatbots
arXiv/Crossref (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/tqgcm_v1 · v1.0 |
4.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 783 | scored |
Retail QA Automation Framework for LLM-Generated UX: Testing Conversational Commerce Interfaces for Compliance, Clarity, and Consistency
International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Multidisciplinary Physical Sciences (2025) · doi:10.37082/ijirmps.v13.i6.232852 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 784 | Screened Out |
Grounding and Operationalising the SYNAPSE Model: Design Principles and Observable Indicators for Human‐Centered, AI‐Augmented Learning
Future in Educational Research (2026) · doi:10.1002/fer3.70054 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 785 | scored |
INTELLIGENT FORECASTING OF RENEWABLE GENERATION FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION AND GRID STABILITY
Bulletin of Toraighyrov University Energetics series (2026) · doi:10.48081/btouen3.2026/181-197 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 786 | scored |
Redefining the role of educators in the Age of AI: well-being, micro-qualifications, and collaboration with AI in the Universities of the Future
Ubiquity Proceedings (2026) · doi:10.5334/uproc.243 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 787 | scored |
Integration of AI technologies in teaching English to STEM students
Buketov Language Review (2026) · doi:10.31489/3135-2316/2026-2-2/9-14 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 788 | Screened Out |
Algorithmic Responsibility in Education: A Curatorial Protocol for AI-Generated Text, Images, and Videos
조형교육 (2026) · doi:10.25297/aer.2026.99.2.25 · v1.0 |
2.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 789 | scored |
How Artificial Intelligence Shapes Human Narratives
Journal of Language and Social Psychology (2026) · doi:10.1177/0261927x261493082 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 790 | scored |
When High-Tech Meets High-Touch: An Evidence-Based Model for Reforming Doctoral Education in the AI Era
Journal of Learning and Instruction Innovation (2026) · doi:10.67803/jolii.v1i2.45 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 791 | scored |
Students’ Perceived Teacher Readiness and Student Satisfaction as Predictors of AI Integration in Indonesian Vocational High Schools
Indonesian Journal of Learning Education and Counseling (2026) · doi:10.31960/ijolec.v9i1.3418 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 792 | Screened Out |
Экспертно-аналитическая компетенция будущих педагогов в оценке генеративного ИИ-контента: структура и дефициты
Доказательная педагогика, психология. (2026) · doi:10.18323/3034-2996-2026-3-66-2 · v1.0 |
2.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 793 | scored |
Complexity and Misuse of AI as Concerns for Teacher Agency
Ubiquity Proceedings (2026) · doi:10.5334/uproc.260 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 794 | scored |
Integration of Artificial Intelligence in the Bilingual Teaching and Learning Process: Innovative Approaches and Perspectives
Ubiquity Proceedings (2026) · doi:10.5334/uproc.258 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 795 | scored |
A Study on Level-Based Scaffolding Design for AI-Assisted Korean Language Education
Journal of Multiculture and Education (2026) · doi:10.31041/jme.2026.11.3.179 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 796 | scored |
A Needs Analysis of PBL–STEAM–AuI-Based Scientific Writing Instruction
Online Learning In Educational Research (OLER) (2026) · doi:10.58524/oler.v6i3.1304 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 797 | scored |
An Umbrella Review on Learning Analytics Dashboards: A Focus on Teachers’ Practices
Ubiquity Proceedings (2026) · doi:10.5334/uproc.247 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 798 | scored |
Rethinking the Function of Educators in the Era of Intelligent Technologies: Digital Soft Skills as a Driver of Teacher Professional Satisfaction
Ubiquity Proceedings (2026) · doi:10.5334/uproc.252 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 799 | Screened Out |
Users' Awareness of Sharing Sensitive Information with AI Tools: A Study among University Students in Mogadishu, Somalia
Horn of Africa Journal of Social Science (2026) · doi:10.70806/f3zyeg18 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 800 | scored |
Carotid plaque burden in the adult Polish urban population and its association with body fat distribution
Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnętrznej (2026) · doi:10.20452/pamw.17414 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |