CN113095650A - Question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method - Google Patents
Question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN113095650A CN113095650A CN202110361860.8A CN202110361860A CN113095650A CN 113095650 A CN113095650 A CN 113095650A CN 202110361860 A CN202110361860 A CN 202110361860A CN 113095650 A CN113095650 A CN 113095650A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- teacher
- scoring
- question
- score
- scores
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 19
- 238000013077 scoring method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 11
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 19
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 claims description 9
- 238000012935 Averaging Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/10—Services
- G06Q50/20—Education
- G06Q50/205—Education administration or guidance
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Educational Technology (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The invention discloses a multi-scoring intelligent scoring method based on question groups, relates to the technical field of computer scoring, solves scoring errors caused by subjective factors of scoring persons when scoring subjective questions, sets a multi-scoring mode, gives different scores for the same subjective question by means of different scoring persons, reasonably processes scoring results and improves scoring fairness. According to the method and the device, the setting of the marking threshold value and the final score accounting are carried out by taking the question group as a unit, the arbitration amount in the multi-evaluation marking process is reduced, and the fairness of marking are improved.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of computer marking, in particular to a question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent marking method.
Background
The types of the current examination marking systems are more, and the question types processed by the examination marking systems are mainly divided into two types, namely objective question types such as a selection question and a judgment question; the other category is mainly subjective questions. For the scoring of the subjective questions, due to the subjective factors of the examiners, different examiners give different scores for the same subjective question, and the examination result is greatly influenced by the subjectivity, so that the examination fairness of the examination is reduced. The scoring system in the prior art scores by a single person, and the scoring result is not accurate enough. In the conventional multi-review paper, the final score is calculated by comparing the threshold values in units of individual subjects. Too small a threshold value can cause too large arbitration amount, and the workload of arbitration marking personnel is increased; too large a threshold value will make the scoring deviation due to individual reason of the reader not be detected by the system, thereby resulting in the decrease of fairness and fairness in the process of reading. Especially, when there are more questions, the two cases are more serious.
Aiming at the problems in the prior art, the method for multi-evaluation intelligent scoring based on the question groups is provided, the setting of scoring threshold values and the final score accounting are carried out by taking the question groups as units, the arbitration amount in the multi-evaluation scoring process is reduced, and the fairness of scoring are improved.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to provide a question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method, which is used for setting a scoring threshold value and performing final scoring accounting by taking a question group as a unit, reducing the arbitration amount in the multi-evaluation scoring process and improving the fairness and fairness of scoring.
The invention provides a question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method, which comprises the following steps of:
step S1: scanning the answered paper test paper into an image by a scanner and storing the image into a computer;
step S2: setting an objective question scanning model and a subjective question scanning model according to the question type distribution of the paper test paper, splitting a scanned picture into objective questions and subjective questions, identifying a plurality of subjective question subtotals by the subjective question scanning model, and setting full score values of the subtotals;
step S3: dividing at least two subjective question subtleties into a question group, setting a scoring mode of the question group as a multi-scoring mode in which a multi-scorer participates, and setting a scoring threshold of the question group;
step S4: the multiple scorers enter a scoring interface to score the scoring of the scoring for the question groups respectively, and if the difference value between the scoring sums is smaller than or equal to a threshold value, each small question in the question groups is subjected to average scoring of the multiple scorers; and if the difference between the scoring sums exceeds the threshold value, the arbitration teacher scores to finish scoring.
Preferably, the multi-scorer in the step S4 indicates that x teachers participate in scoring, where x is greater than or equal to 2 and is an integer, and the subject group scoring threshold is a difference between the scoring sums of the multi-scorer.
Preferably, when the value of x is 2, the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 enter a scoring interface at the same time to score, and if the difference value between the sum of the two scoring scores is less than or equal to the threshold value, each question in the question group takes the average value of the scores scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 as the final score of the question;
and if the difference value between the sums of the two groups of scoring scores is greater than the threshold value, taking the scores of the questions scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 which are equal as the final scores of the current questions, and directly scoring the unequal questions by the arbitration teacher to be used as the final scores of the current questions.
Preferably, when the value of x is 3, the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 enter a scoring interface at the same time to score, and if the difference value between the sum of the two scoring scores is smaller than or equal to the threshold value, each question in the question group takes the average value of the scores scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 as the final score of the question;
and if the difference between the sums of the two groups of scoring scores is greater than the threshold value, taking the scores of the questions scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 equally as the final score of the current question, scoring the unequal questions by the teacher 3, and adding the sum of the score of the question components scored by the teacher 3 to the final score of the existing question plus the score of the teacher 3.
Preferably, if only one group of the score sum of the combination of the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 or the score sum of the combination of the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 does not exceed the threshold value of the question group, taking the average score of the combined score as the final score of each question;
if the two groups of scores do not exceed the threshold value of the topic group, taking the average score of one group with smaller difference value with the threshold value of the topic group as the final score of each topic;
if the two groups of scores do not exceed the threshold of the topic group and the difference values are the same, taking the average score of the group with higher total score as the final score of each topic;
and if the score sum of the combination of the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 or the score sum of the combination of the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 exceeds the threshold value of the question group, taking a group with higher total score to compare scores in the combination, taking average scores of the small questions with the same score as a final score, and giving scores of the small questions with different scores by the arbitration teacher as the final score.
Compared with the prior art, the invention has the following remarkable advantages:
the multi-scoring intelligent scoring method based on the question group solves the scoring error caused by subjective factors of scoring persons when the subjective questions are scored, sets a multi-scoring mode, gives different scores for the same subjective question by means of different scoring persons, reasonably processes scoring results and improves scoring fairness. According to the method and the device, the setting of the marking threshold value and the final score accounting are carried out by taking the question group as a unit, the arbitration amount in the multi-evaluation marking process is reduced, and the fairness of marking are improved.
Drawings
Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of a threshold scoring process of a dual-scoring set according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Detailed Description
The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention are clearly and completely described below with reference to the drawings in the present invention, and it is obvious that the described embodiments are some embodiments of the present invention, but not all embodiments. All other embodiments, which can be obtained by a person skilled in the art without any inventive step based on the embodiments of the present invention, shall fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.
According to the multi-evaluation intelligent marking method based on question groups, intelligent marking is carried out based on an online marking system, and the names related to the method are annotated:
the online paper marking system comprises: the software system is a software system which scans a traditional paper test paper into images through a scanner, stores the images into a computer system and enables a reader to read the images through intelligent electronic equipment through algorithm processing.
Subtotal: the minimum scoring unit of the paper marking personnel in the online paper marking system when marking and reading the test paper.
The question group is: the concept formed by combining one or more associated topics is named. The reading interface seen by the reader usually shows and reads in units of question groups, and shows a plurality of small questions for scoring.
And (4) single evaluation: the same subject is read by only one reader, and the given score is the final score.
Multiple evaluation: and performing reading and marking on the same subject by a plurality of different marking staff, and performing comprehensive calculation on scores of the plurality of marking staff according to a certain logic and a certain rule to obtain a final score. Generally divided into a double score and a triple score.
Subtotal threshold: the maximum difference value which is preset in the multi-scoring process and used for judging the scores given by two different scoring personnel to the same test question in the scoring process is set in advance. If the score difference exceeds a threshold, at least one of the scores is considered unreasonable and requires intervention by a third person.
Double evaluation: and reading the same subject by two different reader, and if the given score difference value is less than or equal to the threshold value, averaging to obtain the final score of the subject. And if the score giving difference value is larger than the threshold value, the third person can read the score giving in an arbitration mode, and the score giving in an arbitration mode is the final score of the small topic.
And (3) evaluation: and reading the same subject by two different reader, and if the given score difference value is less than or equal to the threshold value, averaging to obtain the final score of the subject. If the difference of the given scores is larger than the threshold value, the scoring is performed by a third person, and then the given scores of the three scoring persons are compared in pairs as groups. If at least one group of score difference values are less than or equal to the threshold value, taking the average score of the group which does not exceed the threshold value as the final score according to a certain rule; otherwise, the fourth person gives scores for the second-class questions as an arbitration book reading, and the scores given for the second-class questions are finally scored.
Referring to fig. 1, the invention provides a question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method, which comprises the following steps:
step S1: scanning the answered paper test paper into an image by a scanner and storing the image into a computer;
step S2: setting an objective question scanning model and a subjective question scanning model according to the question type distribution of the paper test paper, splitting a scanned picture into objective questions and subjective questions, identifying a plurality of subjective question subtotals by the subjective question scanning model, and setting full score values of the subtotals;
step S3: dividing at least two subjective question subtleties into a question group, setting a scoring mode of the question group as a multi-scoring mode in which a multi-scorer participates, and setting a scoring threshold of the question group;
step S4: the multiple scorers enter a scoring interface to score the scoring of the scoring for the question groups respectively, and if the difference value between the scoring sums is smaller than or equal to a threshold value, each small question in the question groups is subjected to average scoring of the multiple scorers; and if the difference between the scoring sums exceeds the threshold value, the arbitration teacher scores to finish scoring.
Wherein, the multi-scorer in the step S4 indicates that x teachers participate in scoring, where x is greater than or equal to 2 and is an integer, and the topic group scoring threshold is a difference between scoring sums of the multi-scorer.
Example 1
When x takes a value of 2, the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 enter a scoring interface at the same time to score, if the difference value between the sum of the two scoring scores is less than or equal to the threshold value, each question in the question group takes the average value of the scores scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 as the final score of the question; and if the total difference value of the subject groups of the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 is less than or equal to the threshold value of the subject groups, averaging and dividing of all the small subjects are finished. The current topic group is provided with 8 small topics, the full score of each small topic is 5, and the topic group threshold is 10, which is specifically shown in the following table:
| serial number | Teacher 1 | |
Treatment method | Final score |
| 1 | 5 | 5 | The average division is finished | 5 |
| 2 | 5 | 5 | The average division is finished | 5 |
| 3 | 5 | 4 | The average division is finished | 4.5 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | The average division is finished | 4.5 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 | The average division is finished | 4.5 |
| 6 | 5 | 3 | The average division is finished | 4 |
| 7 | 5 | 3 | AveragingEnd of minutes | 4 |
| 8 | 5 | 3 | The average division is finished | 4 |
| The total composition of the question group | 40 | 31 | 35.5 |
Wherein, the difference between 40 points of the teacher 1 and 31 points of the teacher 2 is 9, which is less than or equal to the question group threshold value 10, and the average of all the small questions is taken as the final score.
And if the difference value between the sums of the two groups of scoring scores is greater than the threshold value, taking the scores of the questions scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 which are equal as the final scores of the current questions, and directly scoring the unequal questions by the arbitration teacher to be used as the final scores of the current questions. And if the total score difference value of the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 is greater than the threshold value of the question group, the arbitration teacher scores the score. The current topic group is provided with 8 small topics, the full score of each small topic is 5, and the topic group threshold is 10, which is specifically shown in the following table:
| serial number | Teacher 1 | |
Treatment method | Final score |
| 1 | 5 | 5 | The average division is finished | 5 |
| 2 | 5 | 5 | The average division is finished | 5 |
| 3 | 5 | 5 | The average division is finished | 5 |
| 4 | 5 | 5 | The average division is finished | 5 |
| 5 | 5 | 2 | Arbitration teacher scoring | * |
| 6 | 5 | 2 | Arbitration teacher scoring | * |
| 7 | 5 | 1 | Arbitration teacher scoring | * |
| 8 | 5 | 1 | Arbitration teacher scoring | * |
| The total composition of the question group | 40 | 26 | * | * |
Wherein, teacher 1's 40 points differ by 14 from teacher 2's 26 points, by more than the threshold of the set of points 10, the marked-up subtotal is scored by the arbitrating teacher.
Example 2
When x takes a value of 3, the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 enter a scoring interface at the same time to score, if the difference value between the sum of the two scoring scores is less than or equal to the threshold value, each question in the question group takes the average value of the scores scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 as the final score of the question;
and if the difference between the sums of the two groups of scoring scores is greater than the threshold value, taking the scores of the questions scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 equally as the final score of the current question, scoring the unequal questions by the teacher 3, and adding the sum of the score of the question components scored by the teacher 3 to the final score of the existing question plus the score of the teacher 3.
Example 3
If only one group of the score giving sum formed by combining the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 or the score giving sum formed by combining the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 does not exceed the threshold value of the question group, taking the average score of the combined score as the final score of each question; teacher 1, teacher 2 and teacher 3 score, teacher 1 compares with teacher 3's total topic group score, teacher 2 compares with teacher 3's total topic group score, if one group's difference is less than or equal to topic group threshold, then the group's small topic is divided equally and finished. The current topic group is provided with 8 small topics, the full score of each small topic is 5, and the topic group threshold is 10, which is specifically shown in the following table:
wherein, the difference between the teacher's 1 40 and the teacher's 2 22 is 18, which is larger than the subject group threshold value 10, the difference between the teacher's 1 40 and the teacher's 3 29 is 11, which is larger than the subject group threshold value 10, and the difference between the teacher's 2 22 and the teacher's 3 29 is 7, and the average score of the group is the final score within the threshold value range.
If the given scores of the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 and the given scores of the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 do not exceed the threshold of the question group, taking the average score of the group with smaller total score difference as the final score of each question; after the giving and giving ratios of the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 exceed the threshold value, the teacher 3 intervenes to give the giving ratios; teacher 1 compares with the general subject group components of teacher 3, teacher 2 compares with the general subject group components of teacher 3, if the difference value of two groups is less than or equal to the threshold value of subject group, the group with the most close general subject group components is selected, and the average division is finished according to each small subject. The current topic group is provided with 8 small topics, the full score of each small topic is 5, and the topic group threshold is 10, which is specifically shown in the following table:
wherein, the difference 12 between the 40 of teacher 1 and the 28 of teacher 2 is larger than the threshold value 10 of the subject group, the intervening teacher 3 gives a score, the difference 9 between the 40 of teacher 1 and the 31 of teacher 3, the difference 3 between the 28 of teacher 2 and the 31 of teacher 3 in the threshold value range, and the average score of the group is the final score in the threshold value range.
If the two groups of scores do not exceed the threshold of the topic group and the difference values are the same, taking the average score of the group with higher total score as the final score of each topic; and scoring by the teacher 1, the teacher 2 and the teacher 3, comparing the teacher 1 with the teacher 3, comparing the teacher 2 with the teacher 3, if the difference value of the two groups is less than or equal to the threshold value of the subject group and the difference of the subject group total score is equal, taking the group with the smaller difference value of the subject group total score, and averaging and dividing according to each small subject. The current topic group is provided with 8 small topics, the full score of each small topic is 5, and the topic group threshold is 10, which is specifically shown in the following table:
wherein, the difference 18 between the 40 of teacher 1 and the 22 of teacher 2 is larger than the threshold value 10 of the subject group, the difference 9 between the 40 of teacher 1 and the 31 of teacher 3 is within the threshold range and equal, the difference 9 between the 22 of teacher 2 and the 31 of teacher 3 is within the threshold range and equal, and the average score of the group is the final score.
And if the score sum of the combination of the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 or the score sum of the combination of the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 exceeds the threshold value of the question group, taking a group with higher total score to compare scores in the combination, taking average scores of the small questions with the same score as a final score, and giving scores of the small questions with different scores by the arbitration teacher as the final score. Teacher 1, teacher 2 and teacher 3 score, teacher 1 compares with the total subject group score of teacher 3, teacher 2 compares with the total subject group score of teacher 3, if the difference value of two groups is greater than or equal to the subject group threshold value, the arbitration teacher gives the score. And if the scores of the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 are equal, or the scores of the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 are equal, ending according to the rule. The current topic group is provided with 8 small topics, the full score of each small topic is 5, and the topic group threshold is 10, which is specifically shown in the following table:
wherein, teacher's 1 40 is 12 different from teacher's 2 28 by score, and is greater than subject group threshold 10, teacher's 1 40 is 26 different from teacher's 3 14 by score, and is greater than subject group threshold 10, teacher's 2 28 is 14 different from teacher's 3 14 by score, and is greater than subject group threshold 10, and the average score of the group is the final score.
The above disclosure is only for a few specific embodiments of the present invention, however, the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments, and any variations that can be made by those skilled in the art are intended to fall within the scope of the present invention.
Claims (5)
1. A multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method based on question groups is characterized by comprising the following steps:
step S1: scanning the answered paper test paper into an image by a scanner and storing the image into a computer;
step S2: setting an objective question scanning model and a subjective question scanning model according to the question type distribution of the paper test paper, splitting a scanned picture into objective questions and subjective questions, identifying a plurality of subjective question subtotals by the subjective question scanning model, and setting full score values of the subtotals;
step S3: dividing at least two subjective question subtleties into a question group, setting a scoring mode of the question group as a multi-scoring mode in which a multi-scorer participates, and setting a scoring threshold of the question group;
step S4: the multiple scorers enter a scoring interface to score the scoring of the scoring for the question groups respectively, and if the difference value between the scoring sums is smaller than or equal to a threshold value, each small question in the question groups is subjected to average scoring of the multiple scorers; and if the difference between the scoring sums exceeds the threshold value, the arbitration teacher scores to finish scoring.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said multiple scorer in step S4 refers to x teachers participating in scoring, wherein x ≧ 2 and is an integer, and said subject group scoring threshold is the difference between the multiple scorer scoring sums.
3. The multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method based on the question group as claimed in claim 2, wherein when x takes a value of 2, the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 enter the scoring interface at the same time to score, and if the difference between the sum of the two scoring scores is less than or equal to the threshold, each question in the question group takes the average value of the scores scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 as the final score of the question;
and if the difference value between the sums of the two groups of scoring scores is greater than the threshold value, taking the scores of the questions scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 which are equal as the final scores of the current questions, and directly scoring the unequal questions by the arbitration teacher to be used as the final scores of the current questions.
4. The multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method based on the question group as claimed in claim 2, wherein when x takes a value of 3, the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 enter a scoring interface at the same time to score, and if the difference between the sum of the two scoring scores is less than or equal to a threshold value, each question in the question group takes the average value of the scores scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 as the final score of the question;
and if the difference between the sums of the two groups of scoring scores is greater than the threshold value, taking the scores of the questions scored by the teacher 1 and the teacher 2 equally as the final score of the current question, scoring the unequal questions by the teacher 3, and adding the sum of the score of the question components scored by the teacher 3 to the final score of the existing question plus the score of the teacher 3.
5. The question group-based multi-scoring intelligent scoring method as claimed in claim 4, wherein if the sum of the scores of the combination of teacher 1 and teacher 3 or the sum of the scores of the combination of teacher 2 and teacher 3 only has one group which does not exceed the question group threshold, the average score of the combined scores is taken as the final score of each question;
if the two groups of scores do not exceed the threshold value of the topic group, taking the average score of one group with smaller difference value with the threshold value of the topic group as the final score of each topic;
if the two groups of scores do not exceed the threshold of the topic group and the difference values are the same, taking the average score of the group with higher total score as the final score of each topic;
and if the score sum of the combination of the teacher 1 and the teacher 3 or the score sum of the combination of the teacher 2 and the teacher 3 exceeds the threshold value of the question group, taking a group with higher total score to compare scores in the combination, taking average scores of the small questions with the same score as a final score, and giving scores of the small questions with different scores by the arbitration teacher as the final score.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110361860.8A CN113095650A (en) | 2021-04-02 | 2021-04-02 | Question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110361860.8A CN113095650A (en) | 2021-04-02 | 2021-04-02 | Question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN113095650A true CN113095650A (en) | 2021-07-09 |
Family
ID=76673607
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110361860.8A Pending CN113095650A (en) | 2021-04-02 | 2021-04-02 | Question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN113095650A (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN117808367A (en) * | 2024-01-02 | 2024-04-02 | 汉考国际教育科技(北京)有限公司 | Intelligent examination paper evaluation system for Chinese examination |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KR20050049461A (en) * | 2005-05-04 | 2005-05-25 | 주식회사 이지다큐 | Management system and the method for examination paper |
| CN104318496A (en) * | 2014-09-27 | 2015-01-28 | 昆明钢铁集团有限责任公司 | Paperless semi-artificial marking system and paperless semi-artificial marking method |
| CN111047212A (en) * | 2019-12-24 | 2020-04-21 | 广东德诚大数据科技有限公司 | Control scoring error data processing system and method for examination marking |
| CN111144251A (en) * | 2019-12-17 | 2020-05-12 | 广东德诚大数据科技有限公司 | Automatic scanning identification system based on image acquisition |
-
2021
- 2021-04-02 CN CN202110361860.8A patent/CN113095650A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KR20050049461A (en) * | 2005-05-04 | 2005-05-25 | 주식회사 이지다큐 | Management system and the method for examination paper |
| CN104318496A (en) * | 2014-09-27 | 2015-01-28 | 昆明钢铁集团有限责任公司 | Paperless semi-artificial marking system and paperless semi-artificial marking method |
| CN111144251A (en) * | 2019-12-17 | 2020-05-12 | 广东德诚大数据科技有限公司 | Automatic scanning identification system based on image acquisition |
| CN111047212A (en) * | 2019-12-24 | 2020-04-21 | 广东德诚大数据科技有限公司 | Control scoring error data processing system and method for examination marking |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN117808367A (en) * | 2024-01-02 | 2024-04-02 | 汉考国际教育科技(北京)有限公司 | Intelligent examination paper evaluation system for Chinese examination |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Holland et al. | Holland and Leinhardt reply: some evidence on the transitivity of positive interpersonal sentiment | |
| Sanders et al. | The electoral impact of press coverage of the British economy, 1979–87 | |
| Marshall et al. | What is and what ought to be popular beliefs about distributive justice in thirteen countries | |
| CN107977637B (en) | Multi-question intelligent paper marking system | |
| Palmer | An econometric analysis of the US Supreme Court's certiorari decisions | |
| Namboodiri | Which couples at given parities expect to have additional births? An exercise in discriminant analysis | |
| Maug et al. | Two-class voting: a mechanism for conflict resolution | |
| CN113095650A (en) | Question group-based multi-evaluation intelligent scoring method | |
| CN111047212A (en) | Control scoring error data processing system and method for examination marking | |
| Leff, Mandy Sharpley, Daniel Chisholm, Ray Bell, Catherine Gamble | Training community psychiatric nurses in schizophrenia family work: a study of clinical and economic outcomes for patients and relatives | |
| Saupe | An empirical model for the corroboration of suspected cheating on multiple-choice tests | |
| Huang | Peer Effects, Parental Migration and Children's Human Capital: A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis in China | |
| Arntz et al. | The End of Work is Near, Isn’t It? Survey Evidence on Automation Angst | |
| CN112231550A (en) | Credit financial product recommendation processing method and device | |
| CN116542829A (en) | Personalized intelligent group scroll and on-line examination method | |
| Pfander | Judicial Purpose and the Scholarly Process: The Lincoln Mills Case | |
| CN102509186A (en) | Self-learning based bidding evaluation system and method | |
| CN115345515A (en) | Heat supply network energy consumption benchmarking evaluation method based on heat supply intensity | |
| Compton | Employment differentials in Northern Ireland and job discrimination: a critique | |
| Gordon et al. | Strategies for information systems implementation: The case of zero base budgeting | |
| Samuels | On the Meaning of Socialism | |
| Willoughby et al. | Population-based study of the developmental outcome of children exposed to chloride-deficient infant formula | |
| Neuman | Parental background, educational attainments and returns to schooling and to marriage: The case of Israel | |
| Lasswell | A study of social stratification using an area sample of raters | |
| Brenner | Ideological Voting on the Vinson Court: A Comparison of Original & Final Votes on the Merits |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination |