Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36547511›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2022

Predication of Writing Originality Based on Computational Linguistics.

Liping Yang, Tao Xin, Sheng Zhang, Yunye Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Liping YangCollaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100091, China.
Tao XinCollaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100091, China.
Sheng ZhangCollaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100091, China.
Yunye YuSchool of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

assessing writingautomated scoringoriginalitysemantic networkstopic analysis

Identifiers

PMID36547511
PMCPMC9783314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.