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: 20150 →
Screen: 18986 →
Eligible: 2773 →
Included: 102
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 = 102 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 | 18044 | 2026-11-13 16:07 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 2079 | 2026-11-13 14:28 |
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 | 18044 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-13 |
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 | 9469 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 8853 |
— | 730 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 265 |
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) | 18588 |
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): 16240 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 | 10505 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 4380 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1355 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1528 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1184 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 37 | 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)
6.46 / 10
Analyzed papers: 754
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 355
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 373
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 26
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 286 |
other | 55 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 17 |
assessment_design | 210 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 61 |
review | 24 |
detector_evaluation | 48 |
survey | 7 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 13 |
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=385, 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 (115)
#Psychometrics (71)
#Item Response Theory (60)
#academic integrity (52)
#assessment validity (52)
#Assessment Validity (51)
#item response theory (46)
#higher education (44)
#Automated Essay Scoring (43)
#automated essay scoring (40)
#Generative AI (32)
#Construct Validity (31)
#LLM as rater (27)
#construct validity (27)
#Large Language Models (25)
#Higher Education (24)
#IRT (24)
#large language models (24)
#LLM Evaluation (23)
#GPT-4 (22)
#generative AI (22)
#assessment redesign (20)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#Automated Scoring (19)
#prompt engineering (19)
#ChatGPT (18)
#LLM as Rater (17)
#Prompt Engineering (17)
#automated scoring (17)
#Assessment Redesign (16)
#assessment design (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#validity (14)
#LLMs as raters (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#differential item functioning (13)
#Computer Science Education (12)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (12)
#LLM-as-a-judge (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#benchmarking (12)
#formative assessment (12)
#inter-rater reliability (12)
#Automated Item Generation (11)
#Differential Item Functioning (11)
#Knowledge Tracing (11)
#LLMs as Test Takers (11)
#Quadratic Weighted Kappa (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#rater drift (11)
#AI-resistant assessment (10)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (10)
#LLM evaluation (10)
#automated item generation (10)
#automated_essay_scoring (10)
#computerized adaptive testing (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#AI-Resilient Assessment (9)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13601 | scored |
AI-Powered Real-Life Scenario Online Quiz Portal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21490283 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13602 | scored |
Extraction of Pain Severity and Functional Interference From Clinical Narratives Using Domain-Informed Large Language Models: Protocol for a Development and Validation Study
JMIR Research Protocols (2026) · doi:10.2196/96346 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13603 | Screened Out |
Faculty development and institutional readiness for incorporating AI in health professions education- A narrative review
Frontiers in Dental Medicine (2026) · doi:10.3389/fdmed.2026.1874590 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13604 | scored |
Mapping the dimension-level links between self-reported teaching practices and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: A psychometric network approach
Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology (2026) · doi:10.33902/jpsp.202647460 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13605 | Screened Out |
Development and psychometric validation of the AI chatbots acceptance and perception scale for higher education students
Scientific Reports (2026) · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-62798-4 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13606 | No Fulltext |
Assessing Fairness in AI-Assisted Writing Scoring: Two Indices for Quantifying the Magnitude of Group Differences
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ursq5_v1 · v1.0 |
5.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13607 | scored |
E091 - Recognition vs Discovery: Owned-Namespace Citation Ownership (Pre-Registration, T0)
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21486403 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13608 | Screened Out |
Employment Interviews
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197809013.003.0015 · v1.0 |
1.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13609 | scored |
Video-based dual-task Four-Square Step Test for fall risk assessment in Parkinson’s disease
Scientific Reports (2026) · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-60745-x · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13610 | Screened Out |
Adoption of generative artificial intelligence in chemistry and chemical engineering education: A PRISMA-guided scoping review of pedagogy, assessment, and governance
Education for Chemical Engineers (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.ece.2026.100521 · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13611 | scored |
From Metrics to Meaning: A Dual-Layered Visual and AI Framework for Enhancing Medical Assessment Quality (Preprint)
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.107767 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13612 | Not Article |
Questionnaire Dataset on the Effects of Student–AI Trust on Learning Engagement and Learning Satisfaction in AI-Based Educational Technology
ScienceDB (2026) · doi:10.57760/sciencedb.44141 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 13613 | scored |
Japanese Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale for Sexually Transmitted Infection–Related Chatbots: Development and Psychometric Validation Study
JMIR Human Factors (2026) · doi:10.2196/90483 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13614 | scored |
Tall buildings with diagrids: design exploration and assessment of the influence of the architectural form on the structural behavior
Structures (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2026.113161 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13615 | scored |
Improving clinical data standardization in surgical notes through biomedical entity linking with contextual evidence from large language models
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2026) · doi:10.1186/s12911-026-03877-4 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13616 | scored |
OpportunityScout: An Autonomous Intelligent Agent for Context-Aware Career Opportunity Discovery, Semantic Eligibility Matching, and Multi-Objective Ranking
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23114497 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13617 | scored |
Prolonged participation AI-based mindfulness school programme in primary education: Implications for AI practices, schools and developers
Learning and Instruction (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102481 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13618 | scored |
ALL MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS SOLVED BY N-K SCIENCES — DECLARATION OF DEFEAT: The 700+ Unsolved Problems, Fields Medal Gatekeeping, and the Failure of the Education System
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23119168 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13619 | scored |
Testing Revisable Authority: A Scripted Reference Test of Five Procedural Specifications and a Public-Records Trace of Complaint Handling under the EU Digital Services Act — Empirical Companion to "From Warranted Acts to Revisable Authority"
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23110634 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13620 | scored |
ĐỀ XUẤT KHUNG NĂNG LỰC TRÍ TUỆ NHÂN TẠO (AI) CHO HỌC SINH PHỔ THÔNG VIỆT NAM DỰA TRÊN KHUNG UNESCO VÀ CHƯƠNG TRÌNH GIÁO DỤC PHỔ THÔNG 2018
Tạp chí Khoa học Trường Đại học Trưng Vương (2026) · doi:10.64223/tvj.p2026.v2.i7.a127 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13621 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence for Automated Analysis and Interpretation of Intravascular Ultrasound in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review
Cureus (2026) · doi:10.7759/cureus.117386 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13622 | scored |
AI-Assisted Language Analytics for Student Development in Higher Education: Evidence from Longitudinal Academic Records
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/vtuhm_v1 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13623 | Screened Out |
Effects of AI-powered ChatGPT on learning achievements of education undergraduates in Nigerian universities
Aminu Kano Academic Scholars Association Multidisciplinary Journal (2026) · doi:10.64726/9npdm622 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13624 | No Fulltext |
From Task Automation to AI-Mediated Judgment in Higher Education
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/68fmg_v2 · v1.0 |
5.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13625 | Screened Out |
Developing a reporting guideline for the use of artificial intelligence in the conduct of systematic reviews: the PRISMA-AIM protocol
OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23122147 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13626 | Not Article |
PREreview of "Psychosexual Rehabilitation After Cancer: A Narrative Review of the Intervention Evidence and a Stepped-Care Model for Survivorship Practice"
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23121344 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 13627 | Not Article |
Future targets shape the predictive value of cardiac mechanical measurements
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23113843 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 13628 | Not Article |
DEVELOPING A MODEL FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUALIZED FEEDBACK IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LESSONS USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23125204 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 13629 | scored |
Machine learning-based prediction of postoperative frailty progression in geriatric hip arthroplasty patients: a retrospective cohort study
European journal of medical research (2026) · doi:10.1186/s40001-026-05290-z · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13630 | Screened Out |
Artificial Intelligence Use and Learner Autonomy Among Secondary Students: The Roles of AI Literacy and Metacognitive Self-Regulation
International Journal of Sustainable and Integrated Studies (2026) · doi:10.65339/ijsis.v1.i3.141 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13631 | Screened Out |
PENDAMPINGAN GURU PENDIDIKAN ANAK USIA DINI DALAM PENGEMBANGAN MEDIA PEMBELAJARAN INTERAKTIF BERBASIS SCRATCH DAN AI GENERATIF
JMM (Jurnal Masyarakat Mandiri) (2026) · doi:10.31764/jmm.v10i5.41523 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13632 | scored |
From Curriculum Obsolescence to Curriculum Intelligence: Rethinking Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23116860 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13633 | Not Article |
Estate-structure analysis scripts and aggregate data for Learning-Assisted Exposure Assessment at Estate Scale
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23122100 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 13634 | Screened Out |
Ethical reasoning and responsible use of ChatGPT in higher education: Integrating technology acceptance and moral cognition
The International Journal of Management Education (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2026.101551 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13635 | In Buffer |
Automated evaluation of written discourse coherence using GPT-4
Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.32 · v1.0 |
5.3 (gemini-3.6-flash) | — |
| 13636 | scored |
Designing for human–AI complementarity in K‐12 education
AI Magazine (2022) · doi:10.1002/aaai.12058 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13637 | scored |
Development and preliminary testing of a patient reported experience measure for chronic disease patients in Singapore
BMC Health Services Research (2025) · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13581-0 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13638 | scored |
Validity of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in adolescents and young adults in Sweden: a think aloud approach combined with a Rasch analysis
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (2025) · doi:10.1186/s12955-025-02447-y · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13639 | scored |
Exploring and criterion setting of resilience measurement scale for golfer
Korean Journal of Sports Science (2025) · doi:10.35159/kjss.2025.10.34.5.679 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13640 | scored |
Psychometric Validation of a Self-Esteem Scale for People with Disabilities
Korean Academy Welfare Counseling (2025) · doi:10.20497/jwce.2025.14.2.329 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13641 | scored |
Examination of the psychometric properties of physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES) based on classical test theory and item response theory
Acta Psychologica (2025) · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105855 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13642 | scored |
Development and validation of the emotional regulation inventory (ERI) using the Rasch model
Journal of Education and Health Promotion (2025) · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_265_25 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13643 | scored |
Research outcome expectations questionnaire: Validation in undergraduate Hispanic students
Acta Psychologica (2025) · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105993 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13644 | abstract_only |
Student Evaluations of Teaching Fail to Predict Learning: Meta-Analysis of Bias, Grade Inflation, and Incentive Distortion in Higher Education
Open Journal of Transformative Education & Lifelong Learning (2025) · doi:10.65655/jscsaa20 · v1.0 |
6.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13645 | scored |
Interest in research questionnaire–short (IRQ): Validation in Spanish-speaking university students
Acta Psychologica (2025) · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.106009 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13646 | scored |
Rasch analysis of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese patients with major depressive disorder
Acta Psychologica (2025) · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105933 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13647 | scored |
Gender Paradox in Psychological Dating Violence in Indonesian Urban Adolescents: A Differential Item Functioning Analysis
Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia (MPPKI) (2025) · doi:10.56338/mppki.v8i11.7963 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13648 | scored |
Investigating the Factor Structure of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Case of Indonesian Students
JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia) (2025) · doi:10.15408/jp3i.v14i2.31689 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 13649 | Screened Out |
BLOCKCHAIN APPLICATIONS IN EDUCATIONAL TESTING: ENHANCING TEST SECURITY, DATA INTEGRITY, AND CREDENTIAL VERIFICATION
Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practice (2025) · doi:10.70382/sjestp.v10i8.060 · v1.0 |
3.2 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 13650 | Screened Out |
PSYCHOMETRIC CHALLENGES IN MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENTS OF UNIVERSITY SCIENCE EDUCATION STUDENTS
International Journal of Educational Research and Development (2025) · doi:10.70382/nijerd.v10i8.037 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |