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: 17015 →
Screen: 15963 →
Eligible: 2378 →
Included: 81
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 = 81 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 | 15228 | 2026-11-06 18:23 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1760 | 2026-11-06 10:24 |
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 | 15228 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-06 |
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 | 7905 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 7512 |
— | 612 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 163 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 101 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 95 |
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) | 15565 |
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): 13612 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 | 8814 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3665 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1133 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1290 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1034 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 30 | 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)
6.59 / 10
Analyzed papers: 624
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 320
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 287
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 17
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 240 |
other | 42 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 13 |
assessment_design | 165 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 54 |
detector_evaluation | 41 |
survey | 7 |
review | 18 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 11 |
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=333, 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 (101)
#Psychometrics (57)
#Item Response Theory (47)
#academic integrity (46)
#item response theory (38)
#Assessment Validity (37)
#assessment validity (37)
#higher education (36)
#Automated Essay Scoring (29)
#Generative AI (28)
#automated essay scoring (27)
#construct validity (26)
#IRT (24)
#Construct Validity (23)
#generative AI (20)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#LLM as rater (19)
#Automated Scoring (17)
#Higher Education (17)
#Large Language Models (17)
#assessment redesign (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#LLM Evaluation (15)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#automated scoring (14)
#large language models (14)
#LLM as Rater (13)
#assessment design (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#prompt engineering (13)
#validity (13)
#GPT-4 (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#differential item functioning (12)
#Assessment Redesign (11)
#ChatGPT (11)
#Prompt Engineering (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#benchmarking (11)
#LLM-as-a-judge (10)
#LLMs as raters (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#Automated Item Generation (9)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (9)
#DIF (9)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#LLMs as Test Takers (9)
#concept drift (9)
#inter-rater reliability (9)
#rater drift (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Differential Item Functioning (8)
#Knowledge Tracing (8)
#Validity (8)
#automated_essay_scoring (8)
#computerized adaptive testing (8)
#construct_validity (8)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2451 | scored |
PERILAKU KECURANGAN AKADEMIK SISWA DI SEKOLAH DASAR DAN KAITANNYA DENGAN PENDIDIKAN KARAKTER
Didaktik Jurnal Ilmiah PGSD STKIP Subang (2026) · doi:10.36989/didaktik.v12i02.14700 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2452 | scored |
APPLYING INTEGRATED ISLAMIC NON-PUNITIVE AND PUNITIVE APPROACHES TO CURB UNETHICAL AI PRACTICES IN MUSLIM ACADEMIA
Journal of Integrated Sciences (2026) · doi:10.67295/jis.v6i3.361 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2453 | Screened Out |
Resume AI: An Explainable Hybrid Agentic Resume Ranking System Using Local LLMs and Deterministic NLP
FMDB transactions on sustainable computing systems. (2026) · doi:10.69888/ftscs.2026.000688 · v1.0 |
2.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2454 | scored |
RAQAMLI TA'LIM MUHITIDA AXBOROT MADANIYATINI RIVOJLANTIRISHNING PEDAGOGIK ASOSLARI
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21275606 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2455 | scored |
TALABALARDA AXBOROT MADANIYATINING PEDAGOGIK MEXANIZMLARINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21279448 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2456 | Screened Out |
L’intégrité académique face aux usages de chatgpt : enjeux, pratiques et perspectives
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.67311/rishs.v1n1.04 · v1.0 |
2.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2457 | Screened Out |
The EE-AID Model: An Instructional Design Process Integrating Ethics into the AI-TPACK Framework for University Lecturers
Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technological Development (2026) · doi:10.59324/jaitd.2026.2(3).07 · v1.0 |
2.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2458 | Screened Out |
Generative AI in Secondary STEM Classrooms: Teachers’ Conditional Acceptance
Journal of Educational Technology and Learning Creativity (2026) · doi:10.37251/jetlc.v4i1.2568 · v1.0 |
2.5 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2459 | scored |
Problems of using borrowed works in the development of educational materials for educational needs
Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law (2026) · doi:10.24144/2307-3322.2026.94.2.12 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2460 | scored |
Pengembangan Platform Ujian Online Berbasis Laravel Dengan Fitur Diskusi Antara Guru Dan Siswa (Studi Kasus : SMK Mutiara Baru)
Jurnal Teknologi Dan Sistem Informasi Bisnis (2026) · doi:10.47233/jteksis.v8i3.4 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2461 | Not Article |
Designing assessments for large university classes: Considering Artificial Intelligence, academic integrity and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20607999 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 2462 | scored |
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES IN MODERN HIGHER EDUCATION: OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.20658182 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2463 | In Buffer |
Vernacular Remote Control: Adversarial Robustness Testing of Six Commercial AI Text Detectors on Provenance-Guaranteed Pre-AI Prose
Research Square (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9596240/v1 · v1.0 |
3.5 (gemini-3.8-flash) | — |
| 2464 | Screened Out |
Exam Automation System using Python
International Journal of Science Strategic Management and Technology (2026) · doi:10.55041/ijsmt.v2i6.124 · v1.0 |
1.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2465 | Screened Out |
AI in the Classroom: How University Instructors Use ChatGPT in Applied Sciences
International Journal Of Recent Trends In Multidisciplinary Research (2026) · doi:10.59256/ijrtmr.20260603029 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2466 | Screened Out |
A Review of Generative AI Integration in Design Education: Macro and Micro Perspectives on University Policies and Course Practices
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (2026) · doi:10.1145/3800645.3813017 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2467 | scored |
SmartLearn Hub: An AI-Driven Learning Management System
International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management (2026) · doi:10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.156 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2468 | scored |
MASS PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS AS A STRATEGY FOR REDUCING YOUTH DEVIANCE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN NIGERIA
Journal of the Nigeria Association of Sports Science and Medicine (2026) · doi:10.66986/jnassm.2026.1901.28-j · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2469 | scored |
PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTIONS OF BIOMETRICS AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION IN CURBING AGE CHEATING IN AGE-GROUP FOOTBALL COMPETITIONS AMONG STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF YOUTHS AND SPORTS DEVELOPMENT ZONES IN NIGERIA
Journal of the Nigeria Association of Sports Science and Medicine (2026) · doi:10.66986/jnassm.2026.1901.31-j · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2470 | scored |
Questions and Answers
Routledge eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4324/9781003646563-2 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2471 | scored |
Advancing Normalisation Process Theory for Artificial Intelligence Integration in Medical Education Assessment
SSRN Electronic Journal (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7351051 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 2472 | Screened Out |
The Voice of Faculty: Perspectives and Experiences Implementing Standardized Program Learning Outcome Measures
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.25316/ir-21040 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2473 | Screened Out |
Mapping Technology-Enhanced Language Assessment in TVET and Occupational Education: Bibliographic Structure and Emerging Directions
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (2026) · doi:10.47772/ijriss.2026.1026edu0520 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2474 | Screened Out |
Operationalizing and Validating Contextual Financial Judgment: Scale Development and Structural Modeling for AI-Driven Personal Finance
International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering Management & Applied Science (2026) · doi:10.51583/ijltemas.2026.150700148 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2475 | scored |
MINDSET-XAI: Multi-Level Explainable Insider Threat Detection Using Temporal Behavioral Modeling and LLM-Assisted Forensic Reasoning
IEEE Access (2026) · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3726811 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2476 | scored |
AI Empowering High School English Education: A Literature Review Focusing on the Role of Teachers
SHS Web of Conferences (2026) · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202623601014 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2477 | No Fulltext |
TrustTrace: Provenance-Aware Tracing of Indirect Prompt Injection Propagation in LLM-Assisted Learning Workflows
IEEE Access (2026) · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3726909 · v1.0 |
6.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2478 | scored |
GenAI Assessment and Language Equity: Drawing the Line between Support and Substitution
SSRN Electronic Journal (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7318642 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 2479 | Screened Out |
Hybrid AI-Augmented Assessment in University English L2 Classrooms: A Tripartite Framework for Teacher Judgement, AI Evidence, and Learner Agency
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (2026) · doi:10.47772/ijriss.2026.1026edu0507 · v1.0 |
4.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2480 | scored |
Applications of digital twins in public health: A critical review of current capabilities and a roadmap for translational readiness
Molecular and Digital Medicine (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.mdmed.2026.100013 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2481 | scored |
Silicon Samples: A Review and Outlook on Large Language Models Simulating Human Respondents
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Practice (2026) · doi:10.23977/jaip.2026.090119 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2482 | scored |
Disruptive Learning in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Metacognitive Creative Destruction Model for Educational Innovation
SSRN Electronic Journal (2026) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7282018 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 2483 | Screened Out |
Development and Initial Validation of a Survey on College Students' Academic Use of Artificial Intelligence and Its Association with Study Habits, Classroom Engagement, and Academic Output Quality
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Higher Education (2026) · doi:10.70847/741246 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2484 | scored |
Individual and group fairness assessments via counterfactual explanations
AI and Ethics (2026) · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01411-w · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 2485 | scored |
ЦИФРОВАЯ ТРАНСФОРМАЦИЯ СПЕЦИАЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: РОЛЬ АССИСТИВНЫХ ТЕХНОЛОГИЙ В СОПРОВОЖДЕНИИ ЛИЦ С ОГРАНИЧЕННЫМИ ВОЗМОЖНОСТЯМИ ЗДОРОВЬЯ
Батыс Қазақстан инновациялық-технологиялық университетінің Хабаршысы (2026) · doi:10.62724/202630302 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2486 | scored |
Ethical challenges in Nigerian mass media practice: A systematic review from 2020 to 2025
Journal of Communication and Media Research (2026) · doi:10.67107/jcmr.2026.678 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2487 | scored |
Advancing Research and Development in the 21st Century: Innovation, Impact, and Transformation
Wah Academia Journal of Social Sciences (2026) · doi:10.63954/wajss.v5i3.505 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2488 | scored |
Empowering Minds: Transformative Effects of AI on Students' Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
THE PROGRESS A Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (2026) · doi:10.71016/tp/5ev6ey92 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2489 | Screened Out |
Ethics and Technology of the Mimetic AI Professor
CRC Press eBooks (2026) · doi:10.1201/9781003785538-6 · v1.0 |
4.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2490 | scored |
The use of artificial intelligence technologies in interrogations within the criminal justice system: current status and prospects
Bulletin of the Karaganda University “Law Series” (2026) · doi:10.31489/2026l3/135-146 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2491 | No Fulltext |
A Multimodal AI Pipeline for Supporting Teaching Evaluation: Cloud Architecture and Reliability Benchmarking Against a Human Inter-Rater Reference Benchmark
Jornadas de Ingeniería Eléctrica y Electrónica (JIEE) (2026) · doi:10.3390/engproc2026158001 · v1.0 |
6.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2492 | scored |
Large language models in Hidradenitis suppurativa: strong empathy, weak exposome awareness
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology (2026) · doi:10.1080/15569527.2026.2740528 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2493 | scored |
Extending diffusion of innovation: ethical considerations, risks and dehumanization factors in generative artificial intelligence adoption
AAOU Journal/AAOU journal (2026) · doi:10.1108/aaouj-10-2025-0167 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2494 | scored |
Evaluating the proficiency of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o and Google Gemini in responding to frequently asked questions on gender affirming care by transgender people
Acta Medica (2026) · doi:10.32552/actamedica.2026.1204 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2495 | scored |
A design-informed framework for integrating generative AI into IoT engineering education: a single-cycle technical implementation case study
Frontiers in Education (2026) · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1919886 · v1.0 |
5.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2496 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Investigating Students’ Perceptions of Its Use in Teaching and Learning
Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala (2026) · doi:10.66388/rrem/18.3/63 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2497 | Not Article |
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF BANK LIABILITY MANAGEMENT UNDER MODERN FINTECH AND DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23069263 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 2498 | Screened Out |
Literature teaching in Georgian higher education: a reflexive longitudinal practitioner study of pedagogical conditions, participation, and interpretive reasoning
Frontiers in Education (2026) · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1895060 · v1.0 |
4.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2499 | scored |
BIT Discovery Kernel 001 — F0–F5 Terminal Closure & Representation-Invention Handoff
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23051940 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 2500 | abstract_only |
Socratic generative AI feedback improves learning transfer and confidence calibration in second language learning
Research Square (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10545020/v1 · v1.0 |
6.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |