PhilArchive
open access
Expert Grammaticality Judges as Evaluators, Not Participants: Grammaticality Judgments, Rater Roles, and Research Ethics Review
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation#1109553
- Propositionwise judgment aggregation: the general case#748765
- Fine-Tuned Large Language Models for Generating Multiple-Choice Questions in Anesthesiology: Psychometric Comparison With Faculty-Written Items / Carlos Ramon Hölzing, Charlotte Meynhardt, Patrick Meybohm, Sarah König, Peter Kranke#783909
- A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise#71520
- JudgmentLens: Human-AI Sensemaking of Complex Legal Judgments#984517
Record · ID 693376
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive