ArticleScientific data2026
A dataset of human and AI-generated rubric evaluations for formative programming assessment.
Article in Scientific data, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Formative assessment in education is often constrained by the time required for rubric design and manual evaluation, limiting the frequency of feedback provided to students. The HARMOGEN-R dataset was created to support research on automated rubric generation and evaluation using artificial intelligence under teacher supervision. It contains evaluations from a Data Structures and Algorithms programming course in which 770 student responses were assessed with five rubrics: one human-created and four generated by large language models (LLMs) using reasoning-enhanced structured and free-form approaches. Each response was evaluated by both human instructors and LLMs, with complete reasoning traces and generated feedback reports recorded to document assessment logic and communication with learners. The dataset also incorporates a variance-based quality control system that flags evaluations exceeding predefined consistency thresholds. This parallel evaluation design enables comparisons of rubric performance, evaluator agreement, and assessment reliability. The dataset is intended for reuse in studies of rubric generation, feedback quality, and automated formative evaluation.
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.