Paper detail

Effective sampling for large-scale automated writing evaluation systems

Automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been shown to be an effective mechanism for quickly providing feedback to students. It has already seen wide adoption in enterprise-scale applications and is starting to be adopted in large-scale contexts. Training an AWE model has historically required a single batch of several hundred writing examples and human scores for each of them. This requirement limits large-scale adoption of AWE since human-scoring essays is costly. Here we evaluate algorithms for ensuring that AWE models are consistently trained using the most informative essays. Our results show how to minimize training set sizes while maximizing predictive performance, thereby reducing cost without unduly sacrificing accuracy. We conclude with a discussion of how to integrate this approach into large-scale AWE systems.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.