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: 19345 →
Screen: 18230 →
Eligible: 2680 →
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 | 17285 | 2026-11-11 18:25 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 2033 | 2026-11-11 14:25 |
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 | 17285 | 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 | 9066 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 8522 |
— | 708 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 235 |
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) | 17832 |
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): 15577 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 | 10063 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 4203 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1311 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1475 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1145 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 36 | 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: 724
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 344
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 359
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 21
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 276 |
other | 54 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 16 |
assessment_design | 196 |
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 (65)
#Item Response Theory (55)
#academic integrity (51)
#assessment validity (50)
#Assessment Validity (49)
#item response theory (45)
#higher education (42)
#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)
#LLM Evaluation (21)
#generative AI (21)
#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_design (16)
#Assessment Redesign (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)
#computerized adaptive testing (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#DIF (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#Medical Education (9)
#concept drift (9)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10501 | failed |
KaPilot: LLM-Assisted Generation of Kani Specifications for Unsafe Rust Verification
Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3832239 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 10502 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Enabled Intelligent Quality Management System (IQMS) For Personalized Learning Path
Procedia Computer Science (2020) · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.096 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10503 | Screened Out |
Towards investigating the validity of measurement of self-regulated learning based on trace data
Metacognition and Learning (2022) · doi:10.1007/s11409-022-09291-1 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10504 | scored |
Supporting the Instructional Videos With Chatbot and Peer Feedback Mechanisms in Online Learning: The Effects on Learning Performance and Intrinsic Motivation
Journal of Educational Computing Research (2022) · doi:10.1177/07356331221077901 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10505 | scored |
Chatbot to improve learning punctuation in Spanish and to enhance open and flexible learning environments
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2021) · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00269-8 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10506 | scored |
Conversation Technology With Micro-Learning: The Impact of Chatbot-Based Learning on Students’ Learning Motivation and Performance
Journal of Educational Computing Research (2020) · doi:10.1177/0735633120952067 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10507 | scored |
Relevance of learning analytics to measure and support students' learning in adaptive educational technologies
International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (2017) · doi:10.1145/3027385.3029463 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10508 | Not Article |
Supplemental Material for Investigating Differential Item Functioning Among Borderline Personality Disorder Diagnostic Criteria and Internalizing/Externalizing Domains Based on Sexual Orientation
Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science (2024) · doi:10.1037/abn0000941.supp · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 10509 | Screened Out |
Revisiting the English Short Measure for Adult Playfulness (SMAP): An Investigation of Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Journal of Personality Assessment (2024) · doi:10.1080/00223891.2024.2390004 · v1.0 |
2.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10510 | Screened Out |
Investigating differential item functioning among borderline personality disorder diagnostic criteria and internalizing/externalizing domains based on sexual orientation.
Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science (2024) · doi:10.1037/abn0000941 · v1.0 |
3.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10511 | Screened Out |
A Review of Some of the History of Factorial Invariance and Differential Item Functioning
Multivariate Behavioral Research (2024) · doi:10.1080/00273171.2024.2396148 · v1.0 |
2.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10512 | Screened Out |
Rasch Analysis of the Chinese Version of the Nociception Coma Scale–Revised in Patients with Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness
Clinical Rehabilitation (2024) · doi:10.1177/02692155241280524 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10513 | Screened Out |
The Effectiveness of Mantel Haenszel Log Odds Ratio Method in Detecting Differential Item Functioning Across Different Sample Sizes and Test Lengths Using Real Data Analysis
Dirasat: Educational Sciences (2024) · doi:10.35516/edu.v51i3.6755 · v1.0 |
4.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10514 | Screened Out |
The Illusory Health Beliefs Scale: preliminary validation using exploratory factor and Rasch analysis
Frontiers in Psychology (2024) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1408734 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10515 | Screened Out |
Differential item functioning in the autism behavior checklist in children with autism spectrum disorder based on a machine learning approach
Frontiers in Psychiatry (2024) · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1447080 · v1.0 |
4.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10516 | scored |
Effect of Differential Item Functioning on Computer Adaptive Testing Under Different Conditions
Applied Psychological Measurement (2024) · doi:10.1177/01466216241284295 · v1.0 |
5.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10517 | No Fulltext |
Bias and Linking Error in Fixed Item Parameter Calibration
AppliedMath (2024) · doi:10.3390/appliedmath4030063 · v1.0 |
5.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10518 | Screened Out |
Psychometric evaluation of the extended inclusion of nature in self scale in Chinese adults through the Rasch analysis
People and Nature (2024) · doi:10.1002/pan3.10726 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10519 | Screened Out |
Differential Item Functioning and Clinical Utility of the Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire in a Multi-Ethnic Cohort
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders (2024) · doi:10.1159/000541236 · v1.0 |
3.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10520 | Screened Out |
An evaluation of measurement invariance of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition borderline personality disorder criteria across heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults.
Personality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment (2024) · doi:10.1037/per0000696 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10521 | Screened Out |
Item response theory analysis of the Chinese version compulsive shopping scale
Comprehensive Psychiatry (2024) · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152535 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10522 | Screened Out |
A psychometric exploration of the specificity of reinforcement sensitivity and social needs
Personality and Individual Differences (2024) · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112847 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10523 | Screened Out |
Developing and Validating a 15-Item True/False Measure of News Literacy Knowledge
Communication Research (2024) · doi:10.1177/00936502241284406 · v1.0 |
3.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10524 | Screened Out |
Investigating Factors Affecting Academic Achievement And Response Pattern Of Secondary School Students With Physical Disabilities In Niger State, Nigeria
NIU journal of educational research. (2024) · doi:10.58709/niujed.v10i2.1995 · v1.0 |
2.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10525 | Screened Out |
Influence Of Aberrant Response Behaviours On Academic Achievement Of Secondary School Students With Physical Disability Status In Niger State, Nigeria
NIU journal of educational research. (2024) · doi:10.58709/niujed.v10i2.1998 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10526 | scored |
Insights on High-Value Procedures From the ISASS 4-Part Webinar Series on Current and Emerging Techniques in Endoscopic Spine Surgery Based on Surgeon Experience
The International Journal of Spine Surgery (2024) · doi:10.14444/8676 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10527 | scored |
Research on adaptive optimization of college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship education based on machine learning and big data analysis
Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering (2025) · doi:10.1177/14727978251355784 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10528 | Screened Out |
Classification of Indonesian Undergraduate Students’ Awareness Level of Phishing Attacks using Decision Tree Algorithm
Journal of Information System Research (JOSH) (2025) · doi:10.47065/josh.v6i4.7859 · v1.0 |
2.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10529 | scored |
On The Modified Information-Based Approach to The Change Point Detection (CPD) Problem under The Non-Central Skew t Distribution
Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice (2025) · doi:10.1007/s42519-025-00474-y · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10530 | scored |
Incremental Learning Detection of Distributed Financially Motivated Attacks in Energy Markets
IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW) (2025) · doi:10.1109/icdcsw63273.2025.00038 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10531 | scored |
Blended therapy for adolescents with chronic health conditions to increase fatigue-related self-efficacy (Booster): protocol for a single-case multiple baseline study
Trials (2025) · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-08960-1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 10532 | scored |
Recognition of Japanese Finger-Spelled Characters Based on Finger Angle Features and Their Continuous Motion Analysis
Electronics (2025) · doi:10.3390/electronics14153052 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10533 | Screened Out |
ASESMEN FIQIH BERBASIS KECERDASAN BUATAN DI MTS: KAJIAN PUSTAKA SISTEMATIS TENTANG VALIDITAS, UMPAN BALIK OTOMATIS, DAN IMPLIKASI ETIKA
JURNAL PENDIDIKAN DAN KEGURUAN (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21870308 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10534 | scored |
นเวศการเรยนรยค AI: การบรณาการปญญาประดษฐเพอเสรมพลงผเรยนและการบรหารจดการคณภาพการศกษาสมยใหม (The AI Learning Ecosystem: Integrating Artificial Intelligence to Empower Learners and Transform Modern Educational Quality Management)
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21870725 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10535 | Screened Out |
Why Students Use Generative Artificial Intelligence for Essay Editing: A Configurational Method and Multidimensional Ethics Scale Perspective
Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education (2026) · doi:10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v7ii.1122 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10536 | Screened Out |
Beyond prohibition and permission: A framework for the ethical use of artificial intelligence
Interdisciplinary Journal of Critical Communications (2026) · doi:10.51986/ijcc-2026.vol1.10 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10537 | Screened Out |
PENGARUH PENGGUNAAN AI GENERATIF DALAM PENYUSUNAN TUGAS MAHASISWA: ANTARA BANTUAN PEMBELAJARAN ATAU PELANGGARAN AKADEMIK
EDUTECH Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Berbantuan Teknologi (2026) · doi:10.51878/edutech.v6i3.14409 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10538 | Screened Out |
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LITERACY IN TEACHER EDUCATION: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BASIC EDUCATION
Artefactum (2026) · doi:10.23900/artefactum.v25i6.3574 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10539 | Screened Out |
Generative AI as a cognitive co-learner: a developmental framework for AI literacy in health sciences education
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (2026) · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1871363 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10540 | scored |
All you need is love: preliminary validation of a new test of 10 parenting competencies that predict good outcomes with young children
Frontiers in Psychology (2026) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1796786 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10541 | Screened Out |
Trust: A Web-Based Examination Platform Unifying FIDO2 Password-less Authentication and Lightweight Snapshot-Based Proctoring
bit-Tech (2026) · doi:10.32877/bt.v9i1.4009 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10542 | scored |
Influence of Religiosity on Academic Dishonesty Among of Islamic Senior High School of Sidoarjo (Smaisda)
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.21070/ups.11535 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 10543 | scored |
What are we sharing? Faculty use of generative AI and the questions we have not yet asked in nursing education
Nurse Education Today (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107326 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 10544 | scored |
Assessing assessment: The role of institutional data in understanding awarding gaps
International Review of Economics Education (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.iree.2026.100358 · v1.0 |
5.2 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10545 | scored |
Optimalisasi Pemanfaatan Artificial Intelligence dalam Peningkatan Kapasitas Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah Berbasis Etika Akademik
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (2026) · doi:10.61231/w24b1508 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10546 | scored |
Etika Kritik Perawi Dalam Tradisi Ilmu Al-Jarḥ Wa Al-Ta’dīl Dan Relevansinya Terhadap Etika Akademik
Jurnal Ushuluddin Media Dialog Pemikiran Islam (2026) · doi:10.24252/jumdpi.v28i2.71788 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10547 | Screened Out |
The Effect of AI Usage Strategy and Self-Regulated Learning on Students' Academic Integrity: The Moderating Role of AI Ethics Perception
International Journal of Economics Business and Innovation Research (2026) · doi:10.63922/ijebir.v5i05.5961 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10548 | scored |
Evaluative conversations as an AI-resilient, effective and inclusive form of assessment
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5fyq4_v2 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10549 | Screened Out |
PAEA Special Interest Group Consensus Statement on the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Physician Associate Education
The Journal of Physician Assistant Education (2026) · doi:10.1097/jpa.0000000000000784 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 10550 | scored |
Beyond AI Police: How Generative AI Is Transforming Education in the Field of Leisure and Recreation
Leisure Sciences (2026) · doi:10.1080/01490400.2026.2716352 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |