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: 19128 →
Screen: 18021 →
Eligible: 2655 →
Included: 96
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 = 96 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 | 17069 | 2026-11-11 10:23 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 2032 | 2026-11-11 10:24 |
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 | 17069 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-11 |
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 | 8967 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 8417 |
— | 703 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 232 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 116 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 108 |
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) | 17623 |
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): 15393 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 | 9958 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 4150 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1285 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1460 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1136 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 35 | 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)
6.49 / 10
Analyzed papers: 721
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 343
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 357
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 21
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 275 |
other | 54 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 16 |
assessment_design | 194 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 61 |
review | 22 |
detector_evaluation | 47 |
survey | 7 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 12 |
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=366, 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 (113)
#Psychometrics (64)
#Item Response Theory (54)
#academic integrity (51)
#assessment validity (49)
#Assessment Validity (48)
#item response theory (44)
#higher education (41)
#Automated Essay Scoring (39)
#automated essay scoring (38)
#Generative AI (30)
#Construct Validity (27)
#construct validity (27)
#LLM as rater (25)
#Higher Education (24)
#IRT (24)
#Large Language Models (23)
#large language models (22)
#GPT-4 (21)
#generative AI (21)
#LLM Evaluation (20)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#Automated Scoring (19)
#assessment redesign (19)
#prompt engineering (19)
#ChatGPT (17)
#automated scoring (17)
#LLM as Rater (16)
#Prompt Engineering (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#Assessment Redesign (15)
#assessment design (15)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#validity (14)
#LLMs as raters (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#differential item functioning (13)
#Computer Science Education (12)
#LLM-as-a-judge (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#benchmarking (12)
#inter-rater reliability (12)
#Automated Item Generation (11)
#LLMs as Test Takers (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#formative assessment (11)
#rater drift (11)
#AI-resistant assessment (10)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (10)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (10)
#Knowledge Tracing (10)
#automated item generation (10)
#automated_essay_scoring (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#DIF (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#Medical Education (9)
#computerized adaptive testing (9)
#concept drift (9)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9201 | scored |
Adaptive Machine Learning Frameworks for Real-Time Threat Detection in Cloud Environments
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation (2025) · doi:10.54660/.ijmrge.2025.6.4.223-229 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9202 | scored |
Machine Learning in Motion: Engineering Self-Adaptive Systems
arXiv/Crossref (2025) · doi:10.59217/rjrp8643 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9203 | scored |
Explaining the reasons for the divorce of young couples in Western Iran: A qualitative Study from the Beneficiary's point of view
PLoS ONE (2026) · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0354355 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9204 | scored |
Enhanced CBERP Detection of Attack Using AI
CRC Press eBooks (2026) · doi:10.1201/9781003635178-15 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9205 | Screened Out |
Responsible use of Artificial Intelligence in Quality Assurance for Education: Opportunities and Challenges
International Scientific Journal of Engineering and Management (2026) · doi:10.55041/isjem08408 · v1.0 |
2.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9206 | Screened Out |
Faculty perceptions of ChatGPT on academic integrity and institutional roles in higher education
Scientific Reports (2026) · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-63852-x · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9207 | Screened Out |
Systematic and Haphazard Use of AI Tools among Undergraduates in Nepal
Janabhawana Research Journal (2026) · doi:10.3126/jrj.v5i1.97888 · v1.0 |
2.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9208 | Not Article |
Digital Divide and Educational Inequality in Asia: A Cross-Country Secondary Data Analysis of Connectivity, Access, and Student Achievement
ICPSR Data Holdings (2026) · doi:10.3886/icpsr309014 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 9209 | Screened Out |
Digital Transformation in Transnational Education (TNE)
IGI Global eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1111-9.ch005 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9210 | Screened Out |
VisionGuard: AI Powered Examination Integrity and Proctoring Management System
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology (2026) · doi:10.48175/ijarsct-37773 · v1.0 |
4.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9211 | Screened Out |
From AI Pushback to AI Integration: A Reflective Case Study on Academic Integrity in EAP
BALEAP Journal of Research and Practice (2026) · doi:10.31273/baleapjrp.v2.n1.2119 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9212 | scored |
Exploration of high school teachers’ experiences with generative artificial intelligence: impacts on teaching and learning
Quality & Quantity (2026) · doi:10.1007/s11135-026-03030-3 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 9213 | Screened Out |
Digital Transformation of Business Administration Education in the Era of Artificial Intelligence:
International Journal of Business Law and Education (2026) · doi:10.56442/ijble.v7i2.1542 · v1.0 |
3.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9214 | Not Article |
Students’ Attitudes towards the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education Learning
Mendeley Data (2026) · doi:10.17632/5w6vr73tc8 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 9215 | No Fulltext |
Large language models in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review of examination performance, knowledge acquisition, and learner perceptions
BMC Medical Education (2026) · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09999-7 · v1.0 |
6.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9216 | Screened Out |
Typologies of TNE and Strategic Implications
IGI Global eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1111-9.ch002 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9217 | Not Article |
FairFlush: measurement harness, raw data and analysis for transport-induced score loss in deadline-bound online examinations
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21710290 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 9218 | scored |
Resilience as a Structural Condition: Mental Health and Safety Challenges in Watchdog Science Journalism
Media and Communication (2026) · doi:10.17645/mac.12365 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9219 | Screened Out |
Educators' Perspectives on Generative AI Use in Nursing Education: Friend or Foe?
Journal of Clinical Nursing (2026) · doi:10.1111/jocn.70477 · v1.0 |
2.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9220 | Screened Out |
Rethinking assessment in the age of generative AI: A systematic literature review of African higher education
Social Sciences & Humanities Open (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103332 · v1.0 |
3.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9221 | Screened Out |
GENERATIVE AI AS A LEARNING COMPANION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR NOVICE PROGRAMMERS
Voice of Academia (2026) · doi:10.24191/voa.v22i2.13445 · v1.0 |
3.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9222 | scored |
Scientific Validity as the Pillar of Good Research in Postgraduate Arabic Language Learning
Mantiqu Tayr Journal of Arabic Language (2026) · doi:10.25217/mantiqutayr.v6i2.7956 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9223 | scored |
Implementasi Aplikasi QR Exam untuk Digitalisasi Sistem Ujian Berbasis Lock-Down Mode di SMP Negeri 1 Limboto Barat
Devotion: Jurnal Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat Bidang Pendidikan, Sains dan Teknologi (2026) · doi:10.37905/devotion.v5i2.40638 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9224 | scored |
Perancangan Sistem Informasi Deteksi Gejala Stunting Anak Menggunakan Metode Certainty Factor Berbasis Website
Jurnal Nasional Teknologi Komputer (2026) · doi:10.61306/jnastek.v6i3.492 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9225 | Screened Out |
Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Management Information Systems to Increase Student Productivity in Early Semester
RIGGS Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Business (2026) · doi:10.31004/riggs.v5i2.12846 · v1.0 |
2.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9226 | Screened Out |
Faculty Readiness for AI-Supported Teaching and Scalable Online Program Delivery in Higher Education: The EPIQ-AI Framework for Epistemic Integrity
International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering Management & Applied Science (2026) · doi:10.51583/ijltemas.2026.150400012 · v1.0 |
3.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9227 | No Fulltext |
CONF.i: Integrating Item Response Theory and Generative AI for Sustainable Engineering Education
Preprints.org (2026) · doi:10.20944/preprints202605.0041.v1 · v1.0 |
5.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9228 | scored |
Quantitative imaging for assessing uveitis activity: A comprehensive review
Survey of Ophthalmology (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2026.04.003 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9229 | scored |
LLM AS THE NON-DESIRING OTHER: A PSYCHOANALYTIC MODEL OF “FROZEN PROJECTION” AND ITS OPERATIONALIZATION WITHIN THE PersonaMatrix FRAMEWORK
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.69635/mssl.2026.2.2.37 · v1.0 |
5.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9230 | Screened Out |
Harnessing Generative Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science Education: Pedagogical Innovation, Ethical Responsibility, and the Future of Assessment
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (2026) · doi:10.53761/wakxak53 · v1.0 |
2.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9231 | In Buffer |
Leveraging AI for competency assessments
Competency-Based Education Research Journal (2026) · doi:10.17161/cberj.v3no2.24319 · v1.0 |
6.1 (gemini-3.8-flash) | — |
| 9232 | Not Article |
Generative AI as External Operational Mediation: Open Research Materials, Supplementary Methodological Guide, Figures, and Coded Corpus Dataset (v15)
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20026336 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 9233 | scored |
AI, Race, and Politics
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.33774/apsa-2026-mzds1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9234 | scored |
Assessing the Influence of AI in Social Media on Traveler's Future Trip-Planning Behavior
International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20024703 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9235 | Screened Out |
Personalized Feedback Based on Artificial Intelligence: A Model for a Humanities Master’s
Высшее образование в России (2026) · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2026-35-4-21-35 · v1.0 |
4.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9236 | scored |
AI literacy as a meta-skill: a four-domain model for academic management innovation in higher education
Frontiers in Education (2026) · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1755238 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9237 | Screened Out |
A Rubric-Integrated Assessment System Using a Large Language Model for Automated Essay Evaluation in Secondary Vocational Schools
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES (2026) · doi:10.31258/jes.10.5.p.11-23 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9238 | scored |
Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Delivering Objective Structured Clinical Examinations for Postgraduate Urology Training (Preprint)
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.100427 · v1.0 |
5.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9239 | scored |
The Digital-Intelligent Learning Engagement Scale for Medical Students: Instrument Development and Psychometric Evaluation (Preprint)
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.100434 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9240 | No Fulltext |
Applying GenAI to Optimize Q-Matrix Construction for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment in EFL Reading
Journal of Intelligence (2026) · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14050079 · v1.0 |
6.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 9241 | scored |
Structured Grading for Advanced University Mathematics Tests Using LLM Agentic Workflow with Accuracy and Methodology Metrics
Research Square (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9607535/v1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 9242 | scored |
AI and Research Methods
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.33774/apsa-2026-h59kk · v1.0 |
5.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9243 | scored |
Game Theory Research on the Development and Promotion of Artificial Intelligence Teaching Platform Based on Multi-Participant University-Enterprise Collaboration
SAGE Open (2026) · doi:10.1177/21582440261494263 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9244 | scored |
Connecting Young Minds (CYM) 2025 Undergraduate Research Conference: 5-Minute Scientific Research Presentations
Undergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal (2026) · doi:10.26685/urncst.1201 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9245 | scored |
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND YOUTH: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY ON UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication (2026) · doi:10.7456/tojdac.1993201 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9246 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Fetal Genetic Variants Across the Prenatal Testing Pathway: A Critical Narrative Review
Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology (2026) · doi:10.9734/cjast/2026/v45i104782 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9247 | scored |
AI technostress and professional identity among Chinese university teachers: the mediating role of teaching self-efficacy and the moderating role of perceived organizational support
Frontiers in Psychology (2026) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1997877 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9248 | scored |
Artificial intelligence in perioperative pressure injury management: a scoping review of evidence, gaps, and implications for population health and digital public health policy
Frontiers in Public Health (2026) · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1952864 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 9249 | Not Article |
MODERN TRENDS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN BIOPHARMACEUTICS: FROM CONVENTIONAL DOSAGE FORMS TO NEXT-GENERATION DRUG DELIVERY
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23076127 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 9250 | scored |
Urban Space Through Different Lenses – Comparing Large Language Models and Participatory Mapping
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23071611 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |