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: 14153 →
Screen: 13326 →
Eligible: 2065 →
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 | 12443 | 2026-10-31 04:04 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1683 | 2026-10-30 22:22 |
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 | 12443 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-10-31 |
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 | 6663 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 6223 |
— | 506 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 111 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 91 |
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) | 12928 |
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): 11288 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 | 7258 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3070 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 960 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1118 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 896 | 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: 551
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 299
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 240
🔴 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 | 47 |
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=286, 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)
#LLMs as raters (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)
#Prompt Engineering (9)
#concept drift (9)
#prompt engineering (9)
#rater drift (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Knowledge Tracing (8)
#construct_validity (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 151 | Screened Out |
Safeguarding students' academic integrity in the age of generative AI: challenges and solutions
Kybernetes (2026) · doi:10.1108/k-04-2025-0878 · v1.0 |
3.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 152 | Screened Out |
Ethical Artificial Intelligence in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Classrooms: Balancing Innovation with Responsible Skill Development among Tertiary Institution Students
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (2026) · doi:10.47772/ijriss.2026.100400315 · v1.0 |
2.2 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 153 | scored |
Impact Of Artificial Intelligence On Human Interaction
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20112620 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 154 | Screened Out |
Generative Ai Based Virtual Teaching Assistant For Personalized Learning
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20085790 · v1.0 |
2.9 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 155 | scored |
Cognitive Augmentation: Effects of Search Engines and AI Chatbots on Accuracy, Metacognition, and Information-Processing Strategies
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/spb49 · v1.0 |
5.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 156 | scored |
Research on the Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Empowering University Teaching
Learning and analytics in intelligent systems (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08195-7_8 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 157 | scored |
Comparison of Generative AI Platforms in Secondary Education: An Application Using the Task-Technology Fit Model
Studies in computational intelligence (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16153-6_1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 158 | Screened Out |
The Agency Index: Development of an AI-Administered Composite Self-Assessment Instrument for Measuring Functional Agency Across Thirteen Psychological Domains
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/7j2mk · v1.0 |
4.2 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 159 | scored |
Evaluating AI-Generated Consumer Guidance Across Six Applied Domains: A Structured Meta-Analysis Protocol
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/xp8hg · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 160 | scored |
Development and Psychometric Testing of a Questionnaire for Evaluating the SINA (Sahabat Ibu Anti Anemia) Maternal Health Chatbot
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research (2026) · doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-571-3_16 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 161 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence Modeling of Risk-Taking Behavior: Contributions of Sensation Seeking, Delay Discounting, Emotional Dysregulation, and Peer Influence
Journal of Assessment and Research in Applied Counseling (2026) · doi:10.61838/kman.jarac.5278 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 162 | scored |
Smart Learning Environments: How an Adaptive Learning Technology and AI-Tools Influence Student Engagement and Satisfaction
Lecture notes in electrical engineering (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12474-6_9 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 163 | Screened Out |
Artificial Intelligence and Educational Assessment Equity: An Integrated Analysis Based on the Technology-Policy-Practice Framework
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research (2026) · doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-569-0_11 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 164 | scored |
Machine learning for the automatic detection of adenoid hypertrophy based on lateral cephalograms
Scientific Reports (2026) · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-72843-x · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 165 | scored |
Artificial intelligence in pre-TAVI CT planning: Automated measurement, valve sizing, and vascular access assessment
OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (2026) · doi:10.17605/osf.io/zjxgh · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 166 | scored |
Domain Shift Analysis of Deep Learning Models for Multiclass Brain Tumor Classification With Explainable Artificial Intelligence Validation
Cureus Journal of Computer Science. (2026) · doi:10.7759/s44389-026-00302-9 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 167 | scored |
Comparing Manual and Semi-Automatic AI-Based Methods for Aortic Landing Zone Assessment for Endovascular Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm
Journal of Endovascular Therapy (2026) · doi:10.1177/15266028261479284 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 168 | scored |
Why Educators Use But Do Not Endorse Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education
Innovative Higher Education (2026) · doi:10.1007/s10755-026-09957-7 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 169 | scored |
TRANSFORMING KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (KPI) TRACKING IN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MACHINE LEARNING: THE APPLICATION OF THE PREMIER SCORE INDEX (PSI) IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Journal of Defence Science Engineering & Technology (2026) · doi:10.58247/jdset-2026-0902-02 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 170 | scored |
Deep learning-based large-scale pan-cancer multiple biomarkers prediction using RIDGE with pathological images
BMC Medical Imaging (2026) · doi:10.1186/s12880-026-02695-4 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 171 | scored |
Ethics, Policy, and Governance
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23063318 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 172 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence Adoption and Business Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Intellectual Structure
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23049450 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 173 | Screened Out |
Negotiating Religious Authority and Generative AI In Banten Higher Education
International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences (2026) · doi:10.51601/ijersc.v7i5.1080 · v1.0 |
1.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 174 | Screened Out |
Enhancing Pronunciation Skills through AI-BasedSpeech Recognition Technologies
International Journal of Business Arts and Scientific Study (2026) · doi:10.70818/ijbass.2026.v07i02.0058 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 175 | scored |
PEDAGOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING STUDENTS' INDEPENDENT THINKING IN A DIGITAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23051949 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 176 | Screened Out |
Can a Bot Heal Writing Anxiety? A Study on ChatGPT, Teacher Feedback, and Student Enjoyment
The Journal of Educators Online (2026) · doi:10.9743/jeo.2026.23.3.12 · v1.0 |
3.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 177 | Screened Out |
Knowledge engineering methods as an adaptive means of improving the methodological training of future teachers in the context of using artificial intelligence
THE TIDINGS of the Baltic State Fishing Fleet Academy Psychological and pedagogical sciences (Theory and methods of professional education) (2026) · doi:10.46845/2071-5331-2026-3-77-7-13 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 178 | scored |
Trends and Future Prospects of International Standards for Semiconductor Optoelectronic Devices
Society for Standards Certification and Safety (2026) · doi:10.34139/jscs.2026.16.3.16 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 179 | Screened Out |
Persepsi Mahasiswa PGSD terhadap Penggunaan ChatGPT sebagai Pendukung Pembelajaran Matematika
Katalis Pendidikan (2026) · doi:10.62383/katalis.v3i3.3513 · v1.0 |
2.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 180 | Not Article |
Cognitive Trapeze — AI Writing Lab: Text-to-Image Pedagogy and Learner Productions in Cameroonian ZEP
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23065606 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 181 | scored |
Artificial intelligence and auditing: Legal and ethical implications for assurance providers
International Journal of Business and Management (IJBM) (2026) · doi:10.56879/ijbm.v5i4.145 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 182 | scored |
Assessment of Spatio-temporal Dynamics of the Remote Sensing Ecological Index (RSEI) based on Landsat 8 Data: A Case Study of Kherson Region, Ukraine (2013–2025)
Ukrainian journal of remote sensing (2026) · doi:10.36023/ujrs.2026.13.3.310 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 183 | Screened Out |
Do Generative AI-Powered Pedagogical Agents Improve Learners’ Academic Performance Effectively? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
Journal of educational computing research (2025) · doi:10.1177/07356331251400540 · v1.0 |
2.8 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 184 | scored |
Multiple Generative AI Pedagogical Agents in Augmented Reality Environments: A Study on Implementing the 5E Model in Science Education
Journal of educational computing research (2024) · doi:10.1177/07356331241305519 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 185 | Screened Out |
The Perspectives of Undergraduate Students on the Effects of Generative AI on Academic Achievement
International Journal of Information and Education Technology (2025) · doi:10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.12.2459 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 186 | scored |
Leveraging generative AI in science lesson study: transforming density concept instruction through ChatGPT integration
International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies (2025) · doi:10.1108/ijlls-11-2024-0277 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 187 | scored |
A Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Human-Computer Collaborative Programming Learning Method to Improve Computational Thinking, Learning Attitudes, and Learning Achievement
Journal of educational computing research (2025) · doi:10.1177/07356331251336154 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 188 | scored |
The potentials and challenges of integrating generative artificial intelligence (AI) in dental and orthodontic education: a systematic review
BMC Oral Health (2025) · doi:10.1186/s12903-025-06070-7 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 189 | Screened Out |
Improving Writing Feedback for Struggling Writers: Generative AI to the Rescue?
TechTrends (2024) · doi:10.1007/s11528-024-00965-y · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 190 | scored |
Can game theory explain grade inflation and AI cheating?: a non-technical conceptual analysis and proposed research program
Frontiers in Education (2026) · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1813391 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 191 | scored |
Effects of immersive virtual reality on primary students’ science performance in classroom settings: a generative AI pedagogical agents-enhanced 5E approach
Interactive Learning Environments (2025) · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2514101 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 192 | scored |
Evolving Professionalism in the AI Era: Implementing Generative AI in Physical Education
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance (2025) · doi:10.1080/07303084.2024.2444586 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 193 | scored |
Assessing Creativity Across Multi-Step Intervention Using Generative AI Models
Journal of Learning Analytics (2025) · doi:10.18608/jla.2025.8571 · v1.0 |
6.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 194 | scored |
Evaluating the Quality and Readability of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbot Responses in the Management of Achilles Tendon Rupture
Cureus (2025) · doi:10.7759/cureus.78313 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 195 | In Buffer |
Challenging the curve: can ChatGPT-generated MCQs reduce grade inflation in pharmacy education
Frontiers in Pharmacology (2025) · doi:10.3389/fphar.2025.1516381 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.6-flash) | — |
| 196 | Screened Out |
Feedback from Generative AI: Correlates of Student Engagement in Text Revision from 655 Classes from Primary and Secondary School
International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (2025) · doi:10.1145/3706468.3706494 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 197 | scored |
Generative AI-powered arts-based learning in middle school history: Impact on achievement, motivation, and cognitive load
The Journal of Educational Research (2025) · doi:10.1080/00220671.2025.2510395 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 198 | scored |
The Effectiveness of AI-Enhanced Generative Chatbots and Adaptive Feedback in Developing Mathematical Reasoning and Probability Problem-Solving Skills among Sudanese Secondary School Students: An Experimental Study (Grade 11- Port Sudan, Sudan)
Omdurman Islamic University Journal for Human Sciences (2025) · doi:10.52981/oiujhs.v21i3.3424 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 199 | Screened Out |
Transforming Learning with Generative AI: From Student Perceptions to the Design of an Educational Solution
Applied Sciences (2025) · doi:10.3390/app15105785 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 200 | Screened Out |
Measurement Properties of the PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile in German, French, and Italian: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the Swiss Population
Advances in Patient-Reported Outcomes (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.apro.2026.100358 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |