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: 17683 →
Screen: 16661 →
Eligible: 2496 →
Included: 84
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 = 84 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 | 15755 | 2026-11-08 02:23 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1901 | 2026-11-08 02:26 |
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 | 15755 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-08 |
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 | 8246 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 7849 |
— | 632 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 186 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 110 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 102 |
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) | 16263 |
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): 14192 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 | 9157 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3839 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1196 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1366 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1075 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 31 | 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)
6.53 / 10
Analyzed papers: 663
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 328
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 316
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 19
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 256 |
other | 47 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 13 |
assessment_design | 177 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 56 |
detector_evaluation | 43 |
survey | 7 |
review | 20 |
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=347, 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 (107)
#Psychometrics (62)
#Item Response Theory (51)
#academic integrity (49)
#Assessment Validity (41)
#assessment validity (40)
#item response theory (39)
#higher education (37)
#Automated Essay Scoring (35)
#automated essay scoring (32)
#Generative AI (29)
#Construct Validity (26)
#construct validity (26)
#IRT (24)
#LLM as rater (22)
#Large Language Models (21)
#generative AI (21)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#Higher Education (19)
#assessment redesign (18)
#Automated Scoring (17)
#LLM Evaluation (17)
#large language models (17)
#prompt engineering (17)
#GPT-4 (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#automated scoring (16)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#LLM as Rater (14)
#validity (14)
#Assessment Redesign (13)
#ChatGPT (13)
#assessment design (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#differential item functioning (13)
#Prompt Engineering (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#Automated Item Generation (11)
#LLMs as raters (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#benchmarking (11)
#inter-rater reliability (11)
#LLM-as-a-judge (10)
#LLMs as Test Takers (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#rater drift (10)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (9)
#DIF (9)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (9)
#Knowledge Tracing (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#Medical Education (9)
#automated_essay_scoring (9)
#concept drift (9)
#formative assessment (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Computer Science Education (8)
#Differential Item Functioning (8)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8051 | Screened Out |
METRICS AND APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING LLM-BASED AGENT QUALITY
Věda a perspektivy (2026) · doi:10.52058/2695-1592-2026-9(64)-539-549 · v1.0 |
4.9 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8052 | scored |
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ADOPTION IN KAZAKHSTAN’S RESOURCE-ORIENTED ECONOMY
NEWS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN (2026) · doi:10.32014/2026.2518-1726.463 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8053 | scored |
How Does Secondary Civilization Emerge? —— Self-Sustaining Evolution and Risk Assessment of High-Order Coupled Silicon-Based Systems
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23076868 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8054 | Not Article |
Persona-conditioned audit of LLM brand recommendations in Ukrainian service markets: data and code (Аудит персоналізації рекомендацій брендів у відповідях LLM на українських ринках послуг: дані й код)
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23080125 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 8055 | Screened Out |
Generative AI and Higher Education in Morocco, Instructional Innovation, Student Entrepreneurship, and New Governance Challenges
Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series (2026) · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8735-2.ch010 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8056 | scored |
Ethical Leadership for Digital Education
Routledge eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4324/9781003643180-12 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8057 | scored |
Nano-totalitarianism: Brain-computer interfaces, fusion databases, and the weaponisation of consciousness
Torture Journal (2026) · doi:10.7146/torture.v36i2.170024 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8058 | Screened Out |
AI-Driven Learning Analytics for Personalized STEAM Education
Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series (2026) · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8735-2.ch003 · v1.0 |
2.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8059 | scored |
ALGORITHMIC WARFARE DISCOURSE IN TURKISH MEDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF NEWS COVERAGE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE IRAN-USA/ISRAEL WAR
The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication (2026) · doi:10.7456/tojdac.1993291 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8060 | scored |
The evolution of American planning over four decades: professional change, institutional adaptation, and future directions
Frontiers of Urban and Rural Planning (2026) · doi:10.1007/s44243-026-00097-2 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8061 | scored |
A Study On The Effectiveness Of AI Technology In Financial Services Among Retail Customers In Chennai
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23079619 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8062 | Screened Out |
AI feedback-seeking and learning engagement in art education: psychological antecedents and reflective mechanisms
Frontiers in Psychology (2026) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1948880 · v1.0 |
4.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8063 | scored |
Data-driven water quality mapping of urban water bodies for sustainable cities and communities: integrating smartphone sensing and geographic information systems—a case study of Beira Lake, Sri Lanka
Frontiers in Sustainability (2026) · doi:10.3389/frsus.2026.1928065 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8064 | scored |
The use of artificial intelligence in assessing fever in the returning traveller: A scoping review
PLOS Digital Health (2026) · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001742 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8065 | scored |
Topological Data Analysis & Structural Invariants * Subtitle / alternative title: When Does Persistent Topology Add Incremental Analytical Value?
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23087791 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8066 | scored |
Diagnostic accuracy of a DenseNet-121 deep learning algorithm for chest radiograph triage in health assessment applicants: a prospective shadow-mode validation study in Nepal
BMJ Open (2026) · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-124868 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8067 | Screened Out |
Three Blocks to Build Practical AI: Teachers’ Perceived Feasibility of Conversational Human–Machine Cooperation in K–12 Programming Education
Systems (2026) · doi:10.3390/systems14101214 · v1.0 |
3.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8068 | scored |
Data and materials for perceptions of generative AI in language education
OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/uz57q · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8069 | Screened Out |
Risk Perception as a Moderating Variable in Generative AI Adoption Among Business School Students
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (2026) · doi:10.37394/23207.2026.23.134 · v1.0 |
4.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8070 | Screened Out |
Artificial Intelligence as A Pedagogical Assistant in Hindu Religious Learning
Jurnal Penelitian Agama Hindu (2026) · doi:10.37329/jpah.v10i4.5703 · v1.0 |
2.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8071 | scored |
Cloud-deployable deep learning for smartphone-based body fluid cytology: a multi-architecture evaluation of YOLO and RT-DETR models
Scientific Reports (2026) · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-74424-4 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8072 | scored |
Human Creative Contribution to AI-Based Output – One Just Can(’t) Get Enough
GRUR International (2023) · doi:10.1093/grurint/ikad075 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8073 | No Fulltext |
ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study
Computers & Education (2024) · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031 · v1.0 |
6.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8074 | Screened Out |
Artificial intelligence in education: The three paradigms
Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (2021) · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100020 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8075 | Screened Out |
State of the art and practice in AI in education
European Journal of Education (2022) · doi:10.1111/ejed.12533 · v1.0 |
2.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8076 | scored |
Development and validation of a Spanish version of the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item score (ObsQoR-10-Spanish)
BJA Open (2024) · doi:10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100269 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8077 | scored |
A short executive functioning questionnaire in the context of early childhood screening: psychometric properties
Child Neuropsychology (2024) · doi:10.1080/09297049.2024.2329435 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8078 | Screened Out |
Understanding the alternative Mantel-Haenszel statistic: Factors affecting its robustness to detect non-uniform DIF
Communication in Statistics- Theory and Methods (2024) · doi:10.1080/03610926.2024.2330668 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8079 | scored |
The Development and Initial Validation of the Self-Regulated Learning Strategies Survey for Elementary School Students
Психология Журнал Высшей школы экономики (2024) · doi:10.17323/1813-8918-2024-2-387-407 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8080 | Not Article |
Peer Review Report For: Critical thinking about treatment effects in Eastern Africa: development and Rasch analysis of an assessment tool [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]
arXiv/Crossref (2024) · doi:10.5256/f1000research.144949.r244064 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 8081 | abstract_only |
Differential Item Functioning analysis in SABER 11. A case study for DIF in large-scale assessments
arXiv/Crossref (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/am73w · v1.0 |
6.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8082 | Screened Out |
Differential Item Functioning Along the Old Age Continuum: Contrasting Chronological Age With Contextual Variables in the Assessment of Gains and Losses Across Advanced Old Age
The Journals of Gerontology Series B (2024) · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbae046 · v1.0 |
4.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8083 | Screened Out |
Psychometric validation of the Danish version of the Major Depression Inventory using data from the Lolland-Falster health study (LOFUS)
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (2024) · doi:10.1080/08039488.2024.2333445 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8084 | Screened Out |
Age-Neutral Measurement Of Personality Functioning and Maladaptive Personality Traits
Assessment (2024) · doi:10.1177/10731911241240626 · v1.0 |
3.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8085 | Screened Out |
Construct Validity of Values System Evaluation Tool Reflected in Lifestyle: A Bifactor Model Approach
arXiv/Crossref (2024) · doi:10.14519/kjot.2024.32.1.03 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8086 | Screened Out |
Adapting the Person Fit Analysis: Ideas on Detecting Person Misfit in Computerized Adaptive Testing
Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi (2024) · doi:10.21031/epod.1461703 · v1.0 |
4.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8087 | scored |
Investigation of Measurement Precision and Test Lengths in Computerized Adaptive Tests in Different Conditions
Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi (2024) · doi:10.21031/epod.1068572 · v1.0 |
5.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8088 | No Fulltext |
ScholarOne - A Generalized Multi-Detectors Combination Approach for Differential Item Functioning Detection
arXiv/Crossref (2024) · doi:10.31124/advance.171198009.97690526/v1 · v1.0 |
6.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8089 | Screened Out |
Construction and Normalization of Competency Evaluative Indicators based on the Screening of Psychological and Personality Fundamental Scales with the Third Edition of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-3)
International journal of new findings in health and educational sciences (IJHES). (2024) · doi:10.63053/ijhes.76 · v1.0 |
2.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8090 | No Fulltext |
Relating violations of measurement invariance to group differences in response times.
Psychological Methods (2024) · doi:10.1037/met0000655 · v1.0 |
6.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8091 | Screened Out |
The Ethiopian Cognitive Assessment battery in Schizophrenia (ECAS): a validation study
Schizophrenia (2024) · doi:10.1038/s41537-024-00462-4 · v1.0 |
2.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8092 | Screened Out |
Attitude Is Everything: Examining Acceptance of Violence Items for Differential Item Functioning Across Heterosexual and Sexual Minority Youth
Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2024) · doi:10.1177/08862605241243338 · v1.0 |
3.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8093 | Screened Out |
Translation and validation of the Chinese self-report version of Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM-SR): Rasch psychometric analysis and online application
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (2024) · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.03.029 · v1.0 |
2.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8094 | No Fulltext |
Smooth Information Criterion for Regularized Estimation of Item Response Models
Algorithms (2024) · doi:10.3390/a17040153 · v1.0 |
6.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8095 | Screened Out |
Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Japanese version of ABILHAND-kids for children with cerebral palsy using Rasch measurement model
Disability and Rehabilitation (2024) · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2338201 · v1.0 |
2.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8096 | scored |
From Batch to Streaming: Building Real-time Inference Pipelines for Machine Learning
International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science Engineering and Information Technology (2025) · doi:10.32628/cseit251112374 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8097 | scored |
MOLSTM for Survival Prediction in Breast Cancer: A Dynamic Feature Aggregation Approach
arXiv/Crossref (2025) · doi:10.1109/isbdas64762.2025.11116824 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8098 | scored |
Large Language Models
Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks (2025) · doi:10.1201/9781003595533-3 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8099 | scored |
Optimizing University Admission Processes for Improved Educational Administration Through Feature Selection Algorithms: A Case Study in Engineering Education
Education Sciences (2025) · doi:10.3390/educsci15030326 · v1.0 |
5.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8100 | scored |
“Ban it!”: Moral foundations of preemptive objections to emerging warbot technology
Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100374 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |