HFEPX · Eval paper review
Marisa C. Peczuh, Nischal Ashok Kumar, Ryan Baker, Blair Lehman +10 more
Published
Oct 14, 2025
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
40/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Feb 18, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill. Developing critical thinking skills through timely assessment and feedback is crucial; however, there has not been extensive work in educational data mining on defining, measuring, and supporting critical thinking. In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of measuring "subskills" that underlie critical thinking. We ground our work in an authentic task where students operationalize critical thinking by writing argumentative essays. We developed a coding rubric based on an established skills progression and completed human coding for a corpus of student essays. We then evaluated three distinct approaches to automated scoring: zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, and supervised fine-tuning, implemented across three large language models (GPT-5, Llama 3.1 8B, and ModernBERT). Fine-tuning Llama 3.1 8B achieved the best results and demonstrated particular strength on subskills with highly separable proficiency levels with balanced labels across levels, while lower performance was observed for subskills that required detection of subtle distinctions between proficiency levels or imbalanced labels. Our exploratory work represents an initial step toward scalable assessment of critical thinking skills across authentic educational contexts. Future research should continue to combine automated critical thinking assessment with human validation to more accurately detect and measure dynamic, higher-order thinking skills.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
Rubric Rating
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is becoming a defining human skill.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Rubric Rating
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.
