Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 43 references

Empowering Computing Education Researchers Through LLM-Assisted Content Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that letting an LLM do deductive coding under a human-built codebook, with an interrater reliability gate, makes large-scale content analysis feasible and rigorous for computing education researchers.

desk verdict A transparent, well-structured protocol proposal for LLM-assisted content analysis; the main gap is that the reliability check is in-sample and the example is hypothetical, so the rigor claim isn't yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18872 v1 pith:25XYXKZR submitted 2025-08-26 cs.CL

Laurie Gale , Sebastian Mateos Nicolajsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords contentanalysislargelanguagemodelsdeductivecodinginterraterreliabilitycomputingeducationresearchqualitativedatareproducibilityLLM-assisted
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

LACA—LLM-assisted content analysis—is proposed as a way for computing education researchers to run content analysis on text corpora far larger than human coding teams could handle. The division of labour is the core move: humans build and iteratively refine the codebook, and a large language model applies it as a deductive coder; a human-LLM interrater reliability check on a sample decides whether the LLM proceeds to the full dataset. The authors argue this preserves the scientific-method standards of content analysis—reliability, validity, replicability—because IRR measures work the same regardless of who or what generates the codes, as long as model, prompt, and workflow are reported. If the claim holds, small teams and time-constrained educators can produce generalisable, reproducible findings from large volumes of student feedback, abstracts, or programming traces. The paper illustrates the method on 12,573 computing education abstracts using a local 27B model.

What carries the argument

The central object is LACA, a content-analysis variant in which humans own the codebook and an LLM performs deductive coding using that codebook as the prompt. The load-bearing mechanism is the interrater reliability gate in Step 4: two humans first reach agreement on a sample, then the LLM's codes on the same sample are compared against the human codes; only if the IRR (e.g., a modified alpha above 0.80) is reached does the analysis proceed to the full corpus. The same workflow is then rerun on all data and reported in enough detail to replicate.

What would settle it

Take the same corpus and codebook, run the LLM coding on the sample ten times with the same prompt and model but different random seeds, and compute the variation in codes and in human-LLM agreement; if the across-run agreement is much lower than the sample alpha, the validation step does not guarantee reproducible full-corpus coding. Alternatively, validate on a held-out sample: compute human-LLM IRR on one sample, then check agreement on a second sample the LLM has not been tuned on; if the second sample's IRR falls below the threshold, the method's gate is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs can replace human coders in deductive content analysis—the stage where a fixed codebook is applied to messages—without sacrificing the methodological standards of content analysis. On the paper's view, interrater reliability measures work identically whether codes come from humans or an LLM, and detailed codebooks suit LLM capabilities, while replicability is preserved by reporting model, prompt, and dates. Consequently, LACA is proposed as a seven-step workflow: justify LLM use and obtain ethics approval, construct a codebook, have humans code a sample and compute human-human IRR, run the LLM on the same sample and compute human-LLM IRR, iterate the co

Load-bearing premise

The method's validity rests on the assumption that a high human-LLM agreement measured on a sample (e.g., an interrater reliability alpha above 0.80) reliably guarantees that the same LLM will code the entire dataset correctly and consistently, across runs and model versions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single researcher or small team can perform content analysis on datasets of tens of thousands of texts, removing the number of coders as the limiting factor.
  • IRR-based validation stays meaningful: reporting human-LLM agreement on a sample makes LLM coding auditable in the same way as human coding.
  • Researchers are incentivized to build more detailed, explicit codebooks, since LLM coding reliability tracks codebook clarity.
  • The example pipeline on 12,573 abstracts shows the method can run with a local model on a mid-range laptop, avoiding cloud privacy concerns.
  • The approach is deliberately limited to deductive coding; inductive code generation is left to humans.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond CER, the same division of labour could transfer to any field doing deductive content analysis, since LACA's steps do not depend on computing-education data.
  • The method's validity rests on a bridge the paper does not test: that sample-level human-LLM agreement predicts full-corpus agreement. A hold-out validation on a second human-coded sample would make that bridge observable.
  • Because LLMs are non-deterministic and change across versions, a practical safeguard would be to re-run a small portion of the corpus on each new model or run and recompute IRR, a step LACA does not currently mandate.
  • For CER specifically, LACA could enable multi-institution aggregation of student feedback and long-term trend analysis—studies previously blocked by coding capacity—though the paper only gestures at these applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLM-assisted content analysis (LACA), a variant of content analysis in which humans construct the codebook (deductively or inductively) and an LLM performs deductive coding at scale. The authors describe a seven-step protocol covering ethical approval, codebook construction, sampling, human coding, human–LLM interrater reliability (IRR), full-corpus LLM coding, and reporting. They illustrate the protocol with a fictitious worked example based on a corpus of 12,573 computing education publication abstracts, and they provide an open repository, a Python library, and a no-code workflow tool. The central claim is that LACA enables computing education researchers to conduct larger-scale, rigorous, and replicable content analyses than would otherwise be feasible.

Significance. If the methodological claims are supported, LACA would be a useful contribution to CER methodology: it is grounded in established content-analysis principles, includes explicit attention to ethics and reporting, and ships reusable artifacts (the repository, library, and no-code tool) that lower the barrier to entry. The paper is also commendable for honestly discussing limitations such as 'fatigue,' stopping criteria, and uncertainty about which data types are suitable. However, the paper's central claim is not demonstrated with original empirical evidence: the worked example is explicitly fictitious and all reported IRR values are assumed. The load-bearing reliability argument also has a validation gap, as the prompt is tuned on the same sample used to measure agreement. The significance is therefore conditional on adding a proper validation step and/or providing a real worked example.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Steps 4–6] The reliability check is in-sample. Step 4 states: 'modify the prompt as needed depending on the IRR produced, and continue until acceptable IRR is achieved on the sample.' Step 6 then applies the final prompt to the entire dataset. Because the prompt is iterated on the same 1,257-abstract sample used for the reported human–LLM agreement, the resulting alpha is an in-sample fit statistic, not a predictive estimate of full-corpus reliability. No held-out sample, no monitoring for drift or distribution shift, and no handling of stochastic variation across runs are described. To support the 'rigorous and replicable' claim, the protocol should require freezing the prompt after the threshold is reached and evaluating it on an independent validation sample (ideally also reporting agreement across repeated runs and model versions).
  2. [Section 3, Steps 3 and 5; Abstract] The illustrative example is entirely hypothetical, and the IRR values are assumed rather than measured. Step 3 states: 'Given the fictitious nature of our example, we assume a Krippendorff's α higher than our threshold of 0.80 was achieved'; Step 5 similarly 'assume[s] that after a series of iterations, the prompt achieves acceptable IRR.' Consequently, the abstract's claim that the paper illustrates how LACA 'could be applied in a reproducible and rigorous manner' is not supported by original data; the argument rests on cited prior work and hypotheticals. Since the central claim is that LACA is rigorous and feasible, the paper needs either a real worked example using the available repository and dataset, or a clear reframing as a proposal whose validation is left to future work, with the claims correspondingly softened.
  3. [Section 3, Step 2] The protocol does not provide methodological guidance on sampling and sample size for the reliability checks. It says to sample 'methodologically' and, in the example, to use a random sample of 1,257 abstracts (10%), but no justification is given for this size or for how representativeness is ensured. The precision of Krippendorff's α depends on the number of units and codes; a stated sample size without a rationale makes it difficult for readers to judge whether the reliability check is sufficient. The paper should provide or cite concrete guidance on determining sample size for both human-human codebook refinement and human-LLM agreement.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5] There is a stray text fragment, 'interactive rebase in progress; onto b6e3daf', embedded in the middle of a sentence about future work. This appears to be an accidental editor/git artifact and should be removed.
  2. [Figure 1] The diagram's decision points and repeat loops are hard to parse in the current PDF rendering. A numbered step list or a table accompanying the figure would make the workflow clearer, especially for readers wanting to replicate the method.
  3. [Section 3, Step 7] The reporting guidance lists model and version but not generation parameters (e.g., temperature, seed, sampling settings). For reproducibility, these should be reported or explicitly fixed (e.g., temperature=0).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LACA is a proposed methodology; its worked example is explicitly fictitious and its validity claims rest on external prior work and testable procedures.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a result from its own assumptions in a circular way. Its central contribution is a proposed procedure (LACA) for using LLMs in deductive content analysis, and the illustrative example is explicitly hypothetical: 'Given the fictitious nature of our example, we assume a Krippendorff’s α higher than our threshold of 0.80 was achieved' and later 'we assume that after a series of iterations, the prompt achieves acceptable IRR'. These assumptions are not presented as empirical evidence for the method's validity. The method's reliability logic is a standard content-analysis workflow: build a codebook, measure human-human IRR, then human-LLM IRR, and only then apply the LLM to the full dataset. The concern that prompt refinement on the same sample used for IRR is an in-sample fit is a methodological validity/reproducibility risk, not a circularity of derivation: the paper does not claim that the sample IRR predicts full-corpus reliability by construction, and it explicitly identifies open limitations ('we do not know how to reliably verify whether this has happened' with respect to fatigue; 'the uncertainty of what data LACA performs well on'). The authors cite their own repositories and tools ([23], [24], [25]) as implementation artifacts, not as evidence for the method's validity, so this is not load-bearing self-citation. The method builds on prior work (notably Chew et al. [6]) but the paper's contribution is an adapted workflow, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation or fitted-parameter-turned-prediction; therefore the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard content-analysis definitions, the unproven-for-this-paper reliability of LLM coding, and the assumption that sample-level human-LLM agreement carries over to full-corpus coding. There are no free parameters in the sense of fitted constants; the listed items are methodological thresholds and sample sizes chosen by hand. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Acceptable IRR threshold (Krippendorff's alpha) = 0.80
    The method's decision to proceed with the LLM depends on this hand-chosen threshold, adopted from Krippendorff's recommendation. It is not fitted to data but is a free methodological choice.
  • Human coding sample size = 1,257 abstracts (10% of dataset)
    The example chooses a 10% random sample for human coding; this is a hand-selected number and affects the reliability estimate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Content analysis as defined by Krippendorff and Neuendorf is a valid framework for making replicable and valid inferences from texts.
    Section 2.1 builds the entire method on these definitions; if this framework were rejected, LACA would lose its methodological grounding.
  • domain assumption LLMs can perform deductive coding reliably when provided a sufficiently detailed codebook.
    The paper cites prior work (McClure et al., Liu et al.) but provides no original evidence; this is a load-bearing premise for the method's feasibility.
  • domain assumption Achieving a target human-LLM interrater reliability on a sample guarantees reliable coding of the full dataset.
    Steps 4 and 6 in Section 3 assume that sample agreement generalizes to the whole corpus; this is the bridge that makes the method work.
  • domain assumption Reporting the model, prompt, and dates is sufficient for replication of LLM coding.
    The paper assumes LLM outputs are stable enough across runs and environments that these details enable others to reproduce the analysis (Section 3, Step 7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empowering Computing Education Researchers Through LLM-Assisted Content Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25XYXKZR

@misc{pith2026250818872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empowering Computing Education Researchers Through LLM-Assisted Content Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25XYXKZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18872}
}
read the original abstract

Computing education research (CER) is often instigated by practitioners wanting to improve both their own and the wider discipline's teaching practice. However, the latter is often difficult as many researchers lack the colleagues, resources, or capacity to conduct research that is generalisable or rigorous enough to advance the discipline. As a result, research methods that enable sense-making with larger volumes of qualitative data, while not increasing the burden on the researcher, have significant potential within CER. In this discussion paper, we propose such a method for conducting rigorous analysis on large volumes of textual data, namely a variation of LLM-assisted content analysis (LACA). This method combines content analysis with the use of large language models, empowering researchers to conduct larger-scale research which they would otherwise not be able to perform. Using a computing education dataset, we illustrate how LACA could be applied in a reproducible and rigorous manner. We believe this method has potential in CER, enabling more generalisable findings from a wider range of research. This, together with the development of similar methods, can help to advance both the practice and research quality of the CER discipline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18872 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. visualises the LACA process. In this section, we outline the process and exemplify the individual steps using a fictitious worked example. While the example is not complete, we provide all the necessary documentation for conducting it in an online repository [23]. With LACA, we highly emphasise how the steps prior to the use of an LLM are crucial in ensuring proper, ethical application. In particular, researchers sh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of LLM workflow in our custom no-code tool for doing programmatic analysis with local LLMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Julian Ashwin, Aditya Chhabra, World Bank, and Vijayendra Rao. 2023. Using Large Language Models for Qualitative Analysis can Introduce Serious Bias. (9 2023). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.17147

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Brett A Becker and Keith Quille. 2019. 50 years of cs1 at sigcse: A review of the evolution of introductory programming education research. In Proceedings of the 50th acm technical symposium on computer science education . 338–344

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Joey Bevilacqua, Luca Chiodini, Igor Moreno Santos, and Matthias Hauswirth

    work page

  4. [4]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/ 1478088706QP063OA

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis. Qualitative Psychology 9, 1 (5 2021), 3–26. https://doi.org/10. 1037/QUP0000196

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Robert Chew, John Bollenbacher, Michael Wenger, Jessica Speer, and Annice Kim

    work page

  7. [7]

    Stefano De Paoli and Walter S. Mathis. 2024. Reflections on inductive thematic saturation as a potential metric for measuring the validity of an inductive thematic analysis with LLMs. Quality and Quantity 59, 1 (2 2024), 683–709. https://doi. org/10.1007/S11135-024-01950-6/FIGURES/14

    work page doi:10.1007/s11135-024-01950-6/figures/14 2024

  8. [9]

    Gregor Große-Bölting, Yannick Schneider, and Andreas Mühling. 2019. It’s like computers speak a different language: Beginning Students’ Conceptions of 6 Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    work page arXiv 2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    Peter Hubwieser, Andreas Mühling, Johannes Magenheim, and Alexander Ruf

  2. [11]

    Cruz Izu and Claudio Mirolo. 2023. Exploring CS1 Student’s Notions of Code Quality. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12–...

    2023

  3. [12]

    Maria Kallia and Sue Sentance. 2019. Learning to use functions: The relationship between misconceptions and self-efficacy. In SIGCSE 2019 - Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education . Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 752–758. https:...

    2019

  4. [13]

    Klaus Krippendorff. [n.d.]. Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha-Reliability. ([n. d.])

  5. [14]

    Klaus H Krippendorff. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2 ed.)

    2004

  6. [15]

    Xiner Liu, Andres Felipe Zambrano, Ryan S Baker, Amanda Barany, Jaclyn Ocumpaugh, Jiayi Zhang, Maciej Pankiewicz, Nidhi Nasiar, and Zhanlan Wei

  7. [16]

    Xiner Liu, Jiayi Zhang, Amanda Barany, Pankiewicz Maciej, and Ryan S Baker

  8. [17]

    Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Päivi Kinnunen, Simon, and Jane Sinclair. 2020. The- ories and Models of Emotions, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy in the Context of Programming Education. , 36–47 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406279

    2020

  9. [18]

    Philipp. Mayring. 2021. Qualitative Content Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. 1–239 pages

    2021

  10. [19]

    Jeanne McClure, Daria Smyslova, Amanda Hall, and Shiyan Jiang. 2024. De- ductive Coding’s Role in AI vs. Human Performance. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educational Data Mining . Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 809–813. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12729958

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    Mary L. McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22, 3 (2012), 276. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2012.031

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    In Advances in Quantitative Ethnography

    Assessing the Potential and Limits of Large Language Models in Qualitative Coding. In Advances in Quantitative Ethnography . Springer, Cham

  13. [22]

    Kimberley Neuendorf. 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook (2 ed.). SAGE Publications, housand Oaks, California. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    Sebastian Mateos Nicolajsen. 2025. Empowering Computing Education Re- searchers Through LLM-Assisted Content Analysis Repository. https://github. com/sebastiannicolajsen/appendix-laca-discussion-paper

    2025

  15. [24]

    Sebastian Mateos Nicolajsen. 2025. Empowering Computing Education Re- searchers Through LLM-Assisted Content Analysis Repository. https://github. com/sebastiannicolajsen/aitomics

    2025

  16. [25]

    Sebastian Mateos Nicolajsen. 2025. Empowering Computing Education Re- searchers Through LLM-Assisted Content Analysis Repository. https://github. com/sebastiannicolajsen/aitomics-ui

    2025

  17. [26]

    Tilman Michaeli and Ralf Romeike. 2020. Investigating Students’ Preexisting Debugging Traits: A Real World Escape Room Study. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series . Association for Computing Machinery. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3428029.3428044

    2020

  18. [27]

    Park and Susan Wiedenbeck

    Thomas H. Park and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2011. Learning web development: challenges at an earlier stage of computing education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Providence, Rhode Island, USA) (ICER ’11). Association for Computin...

    2011

  19. [28]

    Rankin and Jakita O

    Yolanda A. Rankin and Jakita O. Thomas. 2020. The Intersectional Experiences of Black Women in Computing. In SIGCSE 2020 - Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education . Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 199–205. https:/...

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    Becker, Anna Eckerdal, Sally Hamouda, and Simon

    Kate Sanders, Judy Sheard, Brett A. Becker, Anna Eckerdal, Sally Hamouda, and Simon. 2019. Inferential statistics in computing education research: A method- ological review. In ICER 2019 - Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Interna- tional Computing Education Research. ...

    2019

  21. [30]

    Hope Schroeder, Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Casey Randazzo, David Mimno, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2025. Large Language Models in Qualitative Research: Uses, Tensions, and Intentions. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vol. 1. Associati...

    2025

  22. [31]

    Megumi Kivuva, and Amy J

    Alannah Oleson, Benjamin Xie, Jean Salac, Jayne Everson, F. Megumi Kivuva, and Amy J. Ko. 2022. A Decade of Demographics in Computing Education Research: A Critical Review of Trends in Collection, Reporting, and Use. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International C...

    2022

  23. [32]

    Philipp Shah, Marc Berges, and Peter Hubwieser. 2017. Qualitative Content Analysis of Programming Errors. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Association for Computing Machinery, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3029387.3029399;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER

    2017

  24. [33]

    Simon. 2007. A classification of recent australasian computing education publi- cations. Computer Science Education 17, 3 (2007), 155–169

    2007

  25. [34]

    Simon and Judy Sheard. 2020. Twenty-four years of ITiCSE papers. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 5–11

    2020

  26. [35]

    Arto Vihavainen, Juha Helminen, and Petri Ihantola. 2014. How novices tackle their first lines of code in an IDE: Analysis of programming session traces. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol. 2014-November. Association for Computing Machinery, 109–116. https:...

    2014

  27. [36]

    Stefan Wagner, Marvin Muñoz Barón, Davide Falessi, and Sebastian Baltes. 2024. Towards Evaluation Guidelines for Empirical Studies involving LLMs. (11 2024). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.07668

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Carsten Schulte, Sue Sentance, Sören Sparmann, Rukiye Altin, Mor Friebroon- Yesharim, Martina Landman, Michael T Rücker, Spruha Satavlekar, Angela Siegel, Matti Tedre, et al. 2025. What we talk about when we talk about K-12 computing education. In 2024 Working Group Reports on...

    2025

  29. [43]

    Barner, and Matthew Louis Mauriello

    Qile Wang, Moath Erqsous, Kenneth E. Barner, and Matthew Louis Mauriello

  30. [44]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 9, 2 (5 2025)

    LATA: A Pilot Study on LLM-Assisted Thematic Analysis of Online Social Network Data Generation Experiences. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 9, 2 (5 2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3711022/SUPPL{_}FILE/ SUPPLEMENTARY{_}V9CSCW124.PDF 7

    2025 doi

  31. [343]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543967;TOPIC:TOPIC:CONFERENCE- COLLECTIONS>ICER;WGROUP:STRING:ACM

  32. [2013]

    In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

    Towards a conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for com- puter science. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research . Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/1...

  33. [2023]

    (6 2023)

    LLM-Assisted Content Analysis: Using Large Language Models to Support Deductive Coding. (6 2023)

    2023

  34. [2024]

    In ACM International Con- ference Proceeding Series , Vol

    Assessing the Understanding of Expressions: A Qualitative Study of Notional-Machine-Based Exam Questions. In ACM International Con- ference Proceeding Series , Vol. 12. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3699538.3699554/ASSET/28CC8F28-5872-4EDF-9656- ...

  35. [2025]

    169, 1 (2025), 169–185

    Qualitative Coding with GPT-4: Where it Works Better. 169, 1 (2025), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2025.8575

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.