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: 13892 →
Screen: 13077 →
Eligible: 2051 →
Included: 60
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 = 60 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 | 12188 | 2026-10-30 14:22 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1677 | 2026-10-30 14:22 |
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 | 12188 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-10-30 |
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 | 6570 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 6084 |
— | 489 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 110 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 90 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 84 |
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) | 12679 |
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): 11053 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 | 7084 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3018 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 951 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1107 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 893 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 27 | 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)
6.70 / 10
Analyzed papers: 549
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 298
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 239
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 12
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 221 |
other | 37 |
theoretical | 25 |
rct | 13 |
assessment_design | 143 |
natural_experiment | 4 |
quasi_experiment | 45 |
detector_evaluation | 36 |
review | 12 |
survey | 4 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 8 |
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=285, 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 (97)
#Psychometrics (52)
#Item Response Theory (40)
#academic integrity (39)
#item response theory (34)
#assessment validity (29)
#Assessment Validity (28)
#higher education (27)
#IRT (24)
#construct validity (24)
#Automated Essay Scoring (23)
#Generative AI (21)
#automated essay scoring (21)
#Construct Validity (19)
#LLM as rater (17)
#generative AI (17)
#assessment_design (16)
#Academic Integrity (14)
#Automated Scoring (14)
#Higher Education (14)
#LLM Evaluation (13)
#Large Language Models (13)
#assessment design (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#validity (13)
#assessment redesign (12)
#AI-resilient assessment (11)
#academic_integrity (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#automated scoring (11)
#benchmarking (11)
#large language models (11)
#LLM as Rater (10)
#LLM-as-a-judge (10)
#differential item functioning (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#ChatGPT (9)
#DIF (9)
#GPT-4 (9)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#LLMs as Test Takers (9)
#LLMs as raters (9)
#Prompt Engineering (9)
#concept drift (9)
#prompt engineering (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Knowledge Tracing (8)
#construct_validity (8)
#rater drift (8)
#AI-Resilient Assessment (7)
#Assessment Redesign (7)
#Automated Item Generation (7)
#Computer Science Education (7)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (7)
#Differential Item Functioning (7)
#Validity (7)
#computerized adaptive testing (7)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | Screened Out |
Does It Matter If the Content Is Generated by Generative AI? A Rapid Literature Review of Academic Integrity, Ethics, and Pedagogical Implications
Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (2026) · doi:10.63158/journalisi.v8i3.1544 · v1.0 |
1.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 102 | scored |
Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence for Assessment and Feedback in Grade 10 Mathematics Education: Evidence from Vietnamese High Schools
East African Scholars Journal of Education Humanities and Literature (2026) · doi:10.36349/easjehl.2026.v09i06.005 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 103 | scored |
Implementing GenAI-Supported Learning in Software Engineering and Computer Science Education using Bloom's Taxonomy
arXiv (Cornell University) (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.27398 · v1.0 |
5.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 104 | Screened Out |
PEDAGOGICAL MECHANISMS OF THE TRANSITION FROM ACADEMIC INTEGRITY TO THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF THE FUTURE DOCTOR
Continuing Professional Education Theory and Practice (2026) · doi:10.28925/2412-0774.2026.2.8 · v1.0 |
1.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 105 | scored |
Shoot the Honey, Cloak the Player: Towards Zero-Runtime-Overhead Proactive Defense and Detection for Visual Game Cheating
arXiv (Cornell University) (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.25734 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 106 | scored |
Communicating Research for Impact: ATU Research Commentary Series - Academic Year 2025/2026
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20832682 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 107 | Screened Out |
The Ethics of AI and Academic Integrity - Navigating Responsibility, Honesty and The Future of Learning
International Journal of Science Strategic Management and Technology (2026) · doi:10.55041/ijsmt.v2i6.188 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 108 | Screened Out |
Persepsi Mahasiswa terhadap Penggunaan ChatGPT dalam Pencarian Informasi
Sinar Dunia Jurnal Riset Sosial Humaniora dan Ilmu Pendidikan (2026) · doi:10.58192/sidu.v5i2.4627 · v1.0 |
1.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 109 | Not Article |
Illusions for Machines Benchmark Dataset: Adversarial Attacks on OCR via Human Visual Patterns Benchmark Dataset
Figshare (2026) · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.32779587 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 110 | scored |
How repeated opportunities for dishonesty and free-riding problems affect cheating and prosocial behaviour? An experimental evidence from moral preferences
International Journal of Ethics and Systems (2026) · doi:10.1108/ijoes-01-2026-0061 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 111 | scored |
Pengaruh Pendidikan Nilai Kejujuran dan Self-Awareness terhadap Perilaku Anti-Kecurangan Akademik Siswa Kelas XI di SMK Negeri 1 Kasihan Bantul
JURNAL PENELITIAN DAN EVALUASI PENDIDIKAN (2026) · doi:10.64540/q5hazf12 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 112 | scored |
Charting the Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Ethics, Adoption, and Faculty Preparedness
Research Square (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9761581/v1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 113 | Screened Out |
Reimagining Internationalization of the Curriculum and Assessment in the Age of AI
IGI Global eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6630-2.ch016 · v1.0 |
1.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 114 | scored |
Exploring Exercises Selection Methods for Computerized Adaptive Testing Based on Large Language Models
Lecture notes in computer science (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-7144-4_12 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 115 | scored |
Agreement, Calibration, and Failure of Three Large Language Models as High-Stakes Multimodal OSPE Graders: A Comparative Psychometric Analysis
Figshare (2026) · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.31830994 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 116 | scored |
An Urgency Assessment Mechanism for Third-Party Library Method Changes Based on Static Analysis and Large Language Models
SSRN Electronic Journal (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6438900 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 117 | scored |
Reimagining Academic Integrity in the Age of Generative AI: An Access-Centered Framework for Supporting Students with Untreated and Undertreated ADHD and Addressing Ableism in Higher Education
SSRN Electronic Journal (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6300798 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 118 | Screened Out |
An LLM-Native Psychometric Instrument: Factor-Analytic Derivation and Validation of Behavioral Disposition Scales for Large Language Models
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/8y7ka · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 119 | scored |
SAC: A Framework for Measuring and Inducing Personality Traits in LLMs with Dynamic Intensity Control
International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART) (2026) · doi:10.5220/0014415000004052 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 120 | scored |
ADSC: LLM-Augmented Dual-Stream Cooperative Learning for Robust Automated Essay Scoring
Lecture notes in computer science (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-7072-0_18 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 121 | scored |
TBERT: Bridging Text Generation and Score Regression Through Hierarchical Feature Fusion Based LLM for Automated Essay Scoring
Lecture notes in computer science (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-7072-0_35 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 122 | Screened Out |
Intelligent scoring method for English articles leveraging large language models
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology (2026) · doi:10.1504/ijict.2026.152225 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 123 | scored |
Development and psychometric evaluation of the parental attitudes and behaviors toward artificial intelligence use in child health scale
SSRN Electronic Journal (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6366918 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 124 | Not Article |
Supplemental Material for Automated Scoring of the Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire With Fine-Tuned Large Language Models
Psychological Assessment (2026) · doi:10.1037/pas0001466.supp · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 125 | Screened Out |
A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Dependency Scales
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/9xjp2 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 126 | Screened Out |
AI-Assisted XR Design and User Testing: Lessons from an Undergraduate Sustainability Project
AHFE international (2026) · doi:10.54941/ahfe1007168 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 127 | No Fulltext |
Can Large Language Models Grade English Essays? A 19-Model Benchmark of Automated Essay Scoring Accuracy, Stability, and Prompt Sensitivity
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/a96fr · v1.0 |
6.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 128 | Screened Out |
PROSPECTS FOR GROWTH OF THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF EDUCATION THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADVANCED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES
EKONOMIKA I UPRAVLENIE PROBLEMY RESHENIYA (2026) · doi:10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2026.02.05.014 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 129 | Screened Out |
FlashLearn
Open Science Framework (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/73s6v · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 130 | Screened Out |
Implementation of automated essay scoring using generative artificial intelligence in the Sokrates Apps learning management system
AIP conference proceedings (2026) · doi:10.1063/5.0320360 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 131 | scored |
AI-Generated Review Summaries And Consumer Purchase Decisions: A Conceptual Framework For Indian Gen Z Consumers
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23012753 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 132 | scored |
Interdisciplinary Dimensions of Contemporary Research - Marketing and Digital Business Perspectives
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22971589 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 133 | Screened Out |
Prompt Engineering and Web Artifact Generation in Mathematics Education: Investigating In-Service Teachers’ AI-TPACK Development
Preprints.org (2026) · doi:10.20944/preprints202609.2714.v1 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 134 | scored |
The Quid Pro Quo Framework in Indian Patent Law: Sufficiency of Disclosure, Best Method, Fair Basis and Biological Deposits under Section 10
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22955967 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 135 | scored |
AI Generated Literature and Changing Concepts of Authorship
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22951901 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 136 | Not Article |
Educational Leaders Perceptions on Artificial Intelligence
CORA.Repositori de Dades de Recerca (2026) · doi:10.34810/data3630 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 137 | scored |
GAN-Enhanced Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening: A Comprehensive Survey
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22957075 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 138 | scored |
AI For Sustainable Development Opportunities & Innovation
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22933761 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 139 | scored |
The Integration, Utility, and Ethical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Academic Libraries
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22933809 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 140 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Chemistry: Applications, Challenges and Future Perspectives towards Viksit Bharat @2047
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22932744 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 141 | scored |
The AI Lexicon: Exploring Neologism and Contemporary Word Formation Processes
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22909912 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 142 | scored |
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Mathematics Teaching and Learning: Opportunities, Challenges and Future Prospects
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22914099 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 143 | scored |
AI and Digital Economy: Pathway to Sustainable Development and Viksit Bharat 2047
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22909045 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 144 | scored |
English Language and Artificial Intelligence: Future Prospects for Viksit Bharat 2047
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22914670 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 145 | scored |
Developments in the Field of Photography and the Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Technologies in a Developed India
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22914870 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 146 | scored |
Impact of Digital Business on Global Market: A Study
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22916918 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 147 | scored |
Balancing the Books and the Backseat: Algorithmic Management, Student Gig Workers, and the Welfare Gap in India's AI-Driven Platform Economy under Viksit Bharat @2047
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22719808 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 148 | scored |
Digital Transformation of Teacher Education under Vikshit Bharat @2047
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22721417 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 149 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence and Patent Jurisprudence in India: Navigating Inventorship, Section 3(k) Dilemmas, and the Roadmap for Viksit Bharat @2047
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22721126 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 150 | scored |
Death of Human Style of Writing in the World of AI
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.22724092 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |