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: 20521 → Screen: 19341 → Eligible: 2807 → Included: 105
1 Identification Databases & methods Databases & registers n = 18382 arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC Systematic search Other methods n = 2139 References: 2112 Cited by: 0 Manual: 27 Total identified: n = 20521 Removed before screening Non-articles: n = 765 Datasets, software, errata, technical reports Duplicate records removed: n = 6 Automatic deduplication via DOI PK & preprint_of ⏳ Pending screening: n = 382 2 Screening Abstracts (LLM) Records screened (LLM) n = 19341 Passed screening: n = 2780 (score ≥ 5.0) * + Manual curator additions: n = 27 Eligible for full-text review: n = 2807 Excluded by prefilter n = 16561 Score below threshold Score < 5.0 (rubric v2.3) * Gate ≠ PASS or R < 4.0 sets score to 0 3 Eligibility Full text Full-text eligibility assessment n = 2807 Open Access / PDF → Markdown conversion Retrieved & deep analyzed: n = 764 Awaiting full text / analysis: n = 530 Queued in pipeline for fetch or analysis Excluded at eligibility stage Full text not retrieved: n = 1182 Paywall: 393 · Errors: 789 Expert excluded 👎 / pre-deep Expert: n = 1 | Pre-deep: n = 330 Failed empirical triage or /admin/taste verdict 4 Included Synthesis Included in living synthesis n = 105 Published in living editions Full text read, verified & synthesised PRISMA 2020 criteria met Publication buffer & review Publication queue: n = 641 Analyzed papers pending daily issue Expert excluded 👎 post-analysis: n = 18 Unpublished based on editorial verdict

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 = 105 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:
Score = { 0, if Gate ≠ PASS or R < 4.0 Q ⋅ min ( 1 , R 7.0 ) , if R ≥ 4.0
2. Weighted Quality Score (Q):
Q = ∑i wi⋅Si ∑i wi = wM⋅M + wE⋅E + wC⋅C + wN⋅N wM + wE + wC + wN Q = 0.32⋅M + 0.25⋅E + 0.43⋅C + 0.00⋅N 1.00 = 0.32⋅M + 0.25⋅E + 0.43⋅C + 0.00⋅N
3. Logical Prefilter Screening Criterion:
Excluded ⇔ (Score<5.0)
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)

ChannelRecordsLast record
search — arXiv, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC183822026-11-14 16:12
ref — reference lists of read works21122026-11-14 14:30
manual — added manually272026-10-07 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 versionRecords (search)FirstLast
v1.0183822026-10-062026-11-14

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 modelScored
gemini-3.1-flash-lite9635
gemini-3.5-flash-lite9033
—739
Analysis modelpromptAnalyses
gemini-3.1-flash-litev2.1275
gemini-3.6-flashv2.1273
gemini-3.8-flashv2.1117
gemini-3.7-flashv2.1109

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.

CriterionWeight258
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 versionPapers scored
v2.0261
v2.1183
v2.220
v2.3 (current)18943

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.

MeasureValueMeaning
Seed-set recall50% (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): 16561 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 AUC0.65 (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 bandWorksJudged👍👍 rate
0.0–2.0107082 (too few)00%
2.0–4.044780 (too few)0—
4.0–5.013752 (too few)00%
5.0–6.0 ✓15493267%
6.0–8.0 ✓119723835%
8.0–10.0 ✓372 (too few)2100%
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)
6.44 / 10
Analyzed papers: 764
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 356
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 381
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 27
Study DesignPaper Count
psychometric_modeling289
other55
theoretical27
rct17
assessment_design214
natural_experiment5
quasi_experiment61
review25
detector_evaluation50
survey7
experimental1
qualitative13

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
1TitleIdentify as living systematic review✓ ВпровадженоPage title, report metadata
2AbstractStructured summary (background, objectives, methods, results)✓ Впроваджено#prisma-abstract block above
3RationaleRationale in context of existing knowledge✓ ВпровадженоTopic description and rationale
4ObjectivesExplicit objectives using PICO / PECO✓ Впроваджено#pico-framework table above
5Eligibility criteriaInclusion/exclusion criteria, language, dates✓ ВпровадженоThresholds R, Score, Open Access
6Information sourcesDatabases, registers, search dates✓ ВпровадженоarXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, citations
7Search strategyFull search strategy, boolean filters, versions✓ Впровадженоsearch_version, term groups, API limits
8Selection processSelection process, automation, independent screening✓ ВпровадженоLLM screening rotation + editorial taste loop
9Data collectionData collection from full-text reports✓ ВпровадженоPDF → MD parser, deep prompt v2.1
10a-bData itemsList of outcomes and study characteristics✓ ВпровадженоSummary, sample, design, claims, countermeasures
11Study risk of biasAssessment of study methodological quality✓ ВпровадженоRigor criterion M (0–10), quality distribution
12Effect measuresEffect measures for outcomes— Обґрунтовано N/AQualitative synthesis without meta-analytic pooled effects
13a-fSynthesis methodsSynthesis criteria and grouping methods✓ ВпровадженоTag-based clustering, comparative study cards
14Reporting biasAssessment of reporting/publication bias✓ ВпровадженоAnalysis of paywall exclusions & open access skew
15Certainty assessmentCertainty assessment of body of evidence✓ ВпровадженоAutomated quote grounding against full-text Markdown
16Study selectionSelection results (flow diagram, counts)✓ Впроваджено100% stage conservation closure verified
17Study characteristicsCharacteristics of included studies table✓ ВпровадженоInteractive table with DOI, venue, year, tags
18Risk of bias in studiesRisk of bias findings across studies✓ ВпровадженоMethodological rigor M & study designs table
19Results of individual studiesResults for each individual study✓ ВпровадженоPublic paper pages /doi/{doi} with full analysis
20a-dResults of synthesesResults of syntheses & sub-groups✓ ВпровадженоDaily living editions, RSS feed, tag filters
21Reporting biasesResults of reporting biases assessment✓ ВпровадженоPaywall n=393, retracted n=0
22Certainty of evidenceSummary of evidence certainty✓ ВпровадженоGwet's AC₁, Cohen's κ, stratified recall, ROC AUC
23a-dDiscussionDiscussion, limitations, implications✓ ВпровадженоLimitations section (23b, 23c) in methods
24a-cRegistration & protocolRegistration, protocol availability, amendments✓ ВпровадженоPublic repo, version history of search & rubric
25SupportFinancial & non-financial support✓ ВпровадженоFree API tiers declared in methods
26Competing interestsCompeting interests statement✓ ВпровадженоDeclared in methods section
27Data & code availabilityAvailability of data, analytical code, materials✓ ВпровадженоExport 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 (117) #Psychometrics (71) #Item Response Theory (61) #Assessment Validity (53) #academic integrity (53) #assessment validity (52) #Automated Essay Scoring (46) #item response theory (46) #higher education (45) #automated essay scoring (40) #Construct Validity (32) #Generative AI (32) #LLM as rater (28) #construct validity (27) #Large Language Models (26) #Higher Education (24) #IRT (24) #LLM Evaluation (24) #large language models (24) #GPT-4 (22) #generative AI (22) #assessment redesign (21) #Academic Integrity (20) #Automated Scoring (20) #ChatGPT (20) #prompt engineering (20) #LLM as Rater (17) #Prompt Engineering (17) #automated scoring (17) #Assessment Redesign (16) #assessment design (16) #assessment_design (16) #validity (15) #AI-resilient assessment (14) #Computer Science Education (13) #LLMs as raters (13) #automated assessment (13) #differential item functioning (13) #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) #Medical Education (10) #automated item generation (10) #automated_essay_scoring (10) #computerized adaptive testing (10) #item_response_theory (10)
Found papers: 20521
Data Export (Item 27): 📥 CSV 📥 JSON
# Status / Stage Paper LLM Score Expert Review
18651 Screened Out Sequential multi-sensor change-point detection
The Annals of Statistics (2013) · doi:10.1214/13-aos1094 · v1.0
4.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18652 No Fulltext Monitoring Scale Scores over Time via Quality Control Charts, Model-Based Approaches, and Time Series Techniques
Psychometrika (2013) · doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9317-5 · v1.0
6.5 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18653 Screened Out Multiple Hypothesis Tests Controlling Generalized Error Rates for Sequential Data
Statistica Sinica (2017) · doi:10.5705/ss.202015.0267 · v1.0
4.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18654 scored Probability and Stochastic Processes
Cambridge University Press eBooks (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781316997741.005 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18655 scored Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Journal of Electronic Imaging (2007) · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18656 scored Probability and stochastic processes
Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks (2013) · doi:10.1201/b15257-3 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18657 scored Large-scale inference: empirical Bayes methods for estimation, testing, and prediction
Journal of Applied Statistics (2012) · doi:10.1080/02664763.2012.692543 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18658 Screened Out Graph-based change-point detection
The Annals of Statistics (2014) · doi:10.1214/14-aos1269 · v1.0
4.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18659 scored Compound decision theory and empirical Bayes methods: invited paper
The Annals of Statistics (2003) · doi:10.1214/aos/1051027872 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) 👎 Rejected
not_for_educators
Суто сувора статистика, нічого про освіту
18660 scored Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the Savage–Dickey method
Cognitive Psychology (2010) · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.12.001 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18661 scored A Comparison of Some Control Chart Procedures
Technometrics (1966) · doi:10.1080/00401706.1966.10490374 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18662 No Fulltext Efficient scalable schemes for monitoring a large number of data streams
Biometrika (2010) · doi:10.1093/biomet/asq010 · v1.0
5.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18663 scored Asymptotically Subminimax Solutions of Compound Statistical Decision Problems
Springer eBooks (1985) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5110-1_1 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18664 scored Empirical Bayes Analysis of a Microarray Experiment
Journal of the American Statistical Association (2001) · doi:10.1198/016214501753382129 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18665 scored Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing
Journal of the American Statistical Association (2004) · doi:10.1198/016214504000000089 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18666 scored Large-Scale Inference
Cambridge University Press eBooks (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761362 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18667 scored An Empirical Bayes Approach to Statistics
Springer series in statistics (1992) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0919-5_26 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18668 scored On Optimum Methods in Quickest Detection Problems
Theory of Probability and Its Applications (1963) · doi:10.1137/1108002 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18669 scored Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores
American Educational Research Journal (1969) · doi:10.2307/1162101 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18670 scored CONTINUOUS INSPECTION SCHEMES
Biometrika (1954) · doi:10.1093/biomet/41.1-2.100 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18671 scored Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product.
Journal of the American Statistical Association (1932) · doi:10.2307/2277676 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18672 scored Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments
Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (1952) · doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1952-09620-8 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18673 Screened Out Precision and Differential Item Functioning on a Testlet-Based Test: The 1991 Law School Admissions Test as an Example
Applied Measurement in Education (1995) · doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0802_4 · v1.0
4.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18674 scored Modeling Preference Changes via a Hidden MarkovItem Response Theory Model
Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks (2011) · doi:10.1201/b10905-20 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18675 scored Posterior Mode Estimation by Extended Kalman Filtering for Multivariate Dynamic Generalized Linear Models
Journal of the American Statistical Association (1992) · doi:10.2307/2290283 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18676 scored Approximations of Normal IRT Models for Change
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (1999) · doi:10.2307/1165201 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18677 scored A New Item Response Theory Modeling Approach with Applications to Unidimensionality Assessment and Ability Estimation
arXiv/Crossref (1989) · doi:10.21236/ada207301 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18678 No Fulltext A Bayesian Random Effects Model for Testlets
Psychometrika (1999) · doi:10.1007/bf02294533 · v1.0
6.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18679 scored Asymptotic Properties of Conditional Maximum-Likelihood Estimators
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) (1971) · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1971.tb00869.x · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18680 scored Monte Carlo Bayesian Methods for Discrete Regression Models and Categorical Time Series
arXiv/Crossref (1992) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198522669.003.0032 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18681 scored MCMC for State–Space Models
Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks (2011) · doi:10.1201/b10905-22 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18682 No Fulltext Approximations of Normal IRT Models for Change
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (1999) · doi:10.3102/10769986024002208 · v1.0
5.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18683 scored Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models
Springer series in statistics (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9365-9 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18684 scored The Calculation of Posterior Distributions by Data Augmentation
Journal of the American Statistical Association (1987) · doi:10.2307/2289457 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18685 No Fulltext Calibrating Item Families and Summarizing the Results Using Family Expected Response Functions
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (2003) · doi:10.3102/10769986028004295 · v1.0
6.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18686 No Fulltext Quantifying Response Dependence Between Two Dichotomous Items Using the Rasch Model
Applied Psychological Measurement (2010) · doi:10.1177/0146621609360202 · v1.0
6.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18687 In Buffer Assessment of School Performance Through a Multilevel Latent Markov Rasch Model
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics (2011) · doi:10.3102/1076998610381396 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.8-flash) —
18688 Screened Out A Stochastic Growth Model Applied to Repeated Tests of Academic Knowledge
Psychometrika (1989) · doi:10.1007/bf02294628 · v1.0
4.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18689 No Fulltext Conjunctive Item Response Theory Kernels
Psychometrika (1986) · doi:10.1007/bf02294060 · v1.0
5.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) —
18690 scored The Relation of Test Score to the Trait Underlying the Test
Educational and Psychological Measurement (1953) · doi:10.1177/001316445301300401 · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18691 Screened Out Posterior Mode Estimation by Extended Kalman Filtering for Multivariate Dynamic Generalized Linear Models
Journal of the American Statistical Association (1992) · doi:10.1080/01621459.1992.10475232 · v1.0
4.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18692 No Fulltext Application of Multidimensional Item Response Theory Models to Longitudinal Data
Educational and Psychological Measurement (2006) · doi:10.1177/0013164405282490 · v1.0
6.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18693 Screened Out THE RELATION OF TEST SCORE TO THE TRAIT UNDERLYING THE TEST
ETS Research Bulletin Series (1952) · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.1952.tb00926.x · v1.0
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18694 No Fulltext A Multidimensional Latent Trait Model for Measuring Learning and Change
Psychometrika (1991) · doi:10.1007/bf02294487 · v1.0
6.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18695 No Fulltext Random Item IRT Models
Psychometrika (2008) · doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9092-x · v1.0
6.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18696 scored State space mixed models for longitudinal observations with binary and binomial responses
Statistical Papers (2007) · doi:10.1007/s00362-006-0039-y · v1.0
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18697 Screened Out Fitting a Response Model for n Dichotomously Scored Items
Psychometrika (1970) · doi:10.1007/bf02291262 · v1.0
4.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18698 Screened Out Full-Information Item Bi-Factor Analysis
Psychometrika (1992) · doi:10.1007/bf02295430 · v1.0
4.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18699 Screened Out A Nonparametric Approach for Assessing Latent Trait Unidimensionality
Psychometrika (1987) · doi:10.1007/bf02294821 · v1.0
4.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —
18700 Screened Out A New Item Response Theory Modeling Approach with Applications to Unidimensionality Assessment and Ability Estimation
Psychometrika (1990) · doi:10.1007/bf02295289 · v1.0
4.3 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) —