AEEGS and human raters produced similarly shaped score distributions, with most students' scores clustered around the mean in the 'good' band¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Under AEEGS, 598 students (59.3%) scored in the good band, 89 (8.8%) very good and 7 (0.7%) excellent; under human raters, 633 (62.8%) scored good, 71 (7.0%) very good and 5 (0.5%) excellent. → Olaoye DD 2026 q2 i? Human raters' distribution showed 633 students (62.8%) in the good band, 183 (18.2%) fair and 116 (11.5%) low, with scores normally distributed around the mean. → Olaoye DD 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Olaoye DD 2026¶

Olaoye DD, Owolabi HO and Olaoye OT (2026). Automated software scoring of senior school certificate examination mathematical items in economics using a contextual similarity model. Front. Educ. 11:1669504. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1669504

q2 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive frequency analysis of AEEGS scores for all 1,008 students, grouped into five levels using the standard normal curve. The article reports 598 (59.3%) in the good band and 68.8% of scores within good, very good and excellent combined.

"the 7 (0.7%) of the students had excellent scores, 89 (8.8%) and 598 (59.3%) of the students had very good and good scores, while less than half of the students' scores falls within fair and low with 181 (18.0%) and 133 (13.2%) respectively."

Olaoye DD 2026 (2)¶

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive frequency analysis of the 12 human raters' scores for the same 1,008 students, grouped into the same five levels. The article reports 633 (62.8%) good and states the scores are "normally distributed, with majority of the scores cluster around the mean".

"Out of 1,008 students, 5 (0.5%) of them had excellent scores, 71 (7.0%) of them had very good scores, 633 (62.8%) had good scores, 183 (18.2%) had fair scores, and 116 (11.5%) of them had low scores"

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`aeegs-human-score-distributions-similar`
`title`	`AEEGS and human raters produced similarly shaped score distributions, with most students' scores clustered around the mean in the 'good' band`
`description`	`AEEGS and human raters produced similarly shaped score distributions, with most students' scores clustered around the mean in the 'good' band`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`recheck_by`	`2029`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-10`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `olaoye-dd-2026`, `olaoye-dd-2026-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.