score-proof-answers-binary-pedagogical-rubric-n-grams TEC-0197 · proposedScore proof answers with a binary pedagogical rubric, not n-
Replace lexical-overlap scoring with the mean of six binary per-response criteria (step enumeration, notation correctness, worked example, sub-question coverage, explanation depth, proof-step granularity).
Proposed. Filed by the drafting stage because a paper introduces or tests it. Nobody has vouched for it. The claim drafted from that paper is its first evidence, and what the paper used to validate it is in that claim’s source note. Say whether it held up for you, below.
Replace lexical-overlap scoring with the mean of six binary per-response criteria (step enumeration, notation correctness, worked example, sub-question coverage, explanation depth, proof-step granularity). Filed by the drafting stage from AlgoRAG: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Theoretical Computer Science Education -- A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for Algorithm Analysis and Complexity Theory (2609.14572) with status proposed: the paper introduces or tests it, and the claim drafted from the paper is its first evidence. The paper validated it by: Applied to all 179 responses; the rubric separated topics (0.6629 recurrence relations to 0.8250 sorting) where ROUGE did not. No human learning-outcome validation and no inter-rater reliability for the rubric are reported.. Nobody has vouched for it; add support or contest it on this page.
Does it work?
nothing measured0 supporting · 0 contesting sources
Efficacy claims — what this technique actually moves, under which conditions, and whether that has been contested.
No efficacy claim filed yet. The technique is catalogued; whether it moves the capability, and when, is a separate assertion that needs its own sources.
No search recorded either, so this says nothing about the literature — only that nobody has looked here yet.
Code
No repository linked yet. Contribute one.
Sources
Whether a technique works is a claim. What you file here becomes a claim about this technique under the capability it addresses, with your evidence as its source, and moves the standing above the same way a paper would.