ArticleJournal of Intelligence2022
Predication of Writing Originality Based on Computational Linguistics.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing graduate students' evaluative skills through AI-supported collaborative marking.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Existing assessment methods of writing originality have been criticized for depending heavily on subjective scoring methods. This study attempted to investigate the use of topic analysis and semantic networks in assessing writing originality. Written material was collected from a Chinese language test administered to eighth-grade students. Two steps were performed: 1. Latent topics of essays in each writing task were identified, and essays on the same topic were treated as a refined reference group, within which an essay was to be evaluated; 2. A group of features was developed, including four categories, i.e., path distance, semantic differences, centrality, and similarity of the network drawn from each text response, which were used to quantify the differences among essays. The results show that writing originality scoring is not only related to the intrinsic characteristics of the text, but is also affected by the reference group in which it is to be evaluated. This study proves that computational linguistic features can be a predictor of originality in Chinese writing. Each feature type of the four categories can predict originality, although the effect varies across various topics. Furthermore, the feature analysis provided evidence and insights to human raters for originality scoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.