Detecting Problem Statements in Peer Assessments

May 30, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Educational Data Mining

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Yunkai Xiao, Gabriel Zingle, Qinjin Jia, Harsh R. Shah, Yi Zhang, Tianyi Li, Mohsin Karovaliya, Weixiang Zhao, Yang Song, Jie Ji, Ashwin Balasubramaniam, Harshit Patel, Priyankha Bhalasubbramanian, Vikram Patel, Edward F. Gehringer arXiv ID 2006.04532 Category cs.IR: Information Retrieval Cross-listed cs.LG, stat.ML Citations 17 Venue Educational Data Mining Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Effective peer assessment requires students to be attentive to the deficiencies in the work they rate. Thus, their reviews should identify problems. But what ways are there to check that they do? We attempt to automate the process of deciding whether a review comment detects a problem. We use over 18,000 review comments that were labeled by the reviewees as either detecting or not detecting a problem with the work. We deploy several traditional machine-learning models, as well as neural-network models using GloVe and BERT embeddings. We find that the best performer is the Hierarchical Attention Network classifier, followed by the Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) Attention and Capsule model with scores of 93.1% and 90.5% respectively. The best non-neural network model was the support vector machine with a score of 89.71%. This is followed by the Stochastic Gradient Descent model and the Logistic Regression model with 89.70% and 88.98%.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Information Retrieval

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted