Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryLearners: Adults not in a learning role (raters)Outcome: Behavior or engagementPreprintSmall or impreciseStudy type: Case study / case series
2026-09-23 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Educational technology (EdTech) platforms collect highly sensitive student data, including behavioral logs, disability records, and academic histories. However, privacy considerations are often postponed rather than treated as a foundational design requirement.
Why this label for "We'll Fix It Later": Education, AI, and the Deferral of Privacy in EdTech
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: Consensus level confirmed against the methodology.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review)
- Grader A: R5 design ceiling: interviews and a platform policy audit provide descriptive evidence without a controlled comparison.
- Grader B: R5 design ceiling: qualitative interviews (n=12 EdTech professionals) plus a privacy policy audit of 48 platforms (kappa 0.78); descriptive, no learners
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review) Method
Level 1: Descriptive or exploratoryProvisional (rules only)
2026-03-30 · ERIC (peer reviewed) · Study
Background: Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are vulnerable to the psychological impact of traumatic events due to inherent difficulties in emotion regulation and executive functioning. This study examines the predictive roles of attachment styles and family functioning on depressive,...
Why this label for Attachment Style and Family Functioning as Predictors of Trauma Symptoms in Chil
- Level 1: Descriptive or exploratory: provisional rules-only grade, pending grader consensus and review: R5 design: descriptive (F3): Descriptive, qualitative, pilot or deployment study with real participants.
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Technical testLearners: Simulated or AI-onlyOutcome: Model performancePreprintSmall or impreciseResearcher-made measureStudy type: Technical test (no real learners)
2026-08-01 · arXiv (back catalog) · Study (preprint)
Generative AI tools increasingly produce educational materials: documents, slides, images, audio, and video, yet little is known about whether this content meets accessibility requirements. This paper presents a protocol for evaluating the accessibility of AI-generated educational materials against the Web Content...
Why this label for A Protocol for Evaluating the Accessibility of AI-Generated Educational Material
- Technical test: Two independent AI graders gave the same level.
- Review status: Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review): both graders agreed
- Grader A: R4 technical gate: an exploratory test scores AI-generated artifacts, with no learner outcome.
- Grader B: R4 real-learner gate: a protocol scoring the accessibility of AI-generated materials, using one model and one evaluator, with no learners.
- Rule version: METHODOLOGY v0.3, pipeline v1, rules rules-v0.4
Graded blind by two AI graders against our published method. Confirmed against the published method (AI-assisted review): both graders agreed Method
CommentaryProvisional (rules only)
2026-10-20 · American Educational Research Journal (SAGE) · Study
This paper examines how parents of students with disabilities from different social classes, racial backgrounds, geographic locations, and developmental stages construct school choice sets. Using an intersectional approach, we integrate ethnographic ...
Why this label for Constructing Choice Sets at the Intersections of Disability, Race, Class, and Ge
- Commentary: provisional rules-only grade, pending grader consensus and review: R3 genre gate: No empirical learner data described; conceptual, framework, policy or argument paper.
- Inclusion and accessibility: matched 'students with disabilities'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
CommentaryStudy type: Not a study
2026-09-11 · EdSurge · News
Using AI in IEP meetings can benefit parents and teachers - if done correctly.
Why this label for Parents Are Bringing AI to the IEP Meeting. How Should Teachers Respond?
- Commentary: news, commentary or policy with no study
- Inclusion and accessibility: matched 'IEP'
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
Not yet classified
Listed for the December 2026 issue · Teaching and Teacher Education (Elsevier) · Study
Publisher listing (abstract not yet available): Journal article in Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 184 by Taina Gabriel, Jochanan Veerbeek, Moritz Börnert-Ringleb. Issue: December 2026. Abstract on the publisher page.
Why this label for Comparing the preference of diagnostic information from variations of dynamic te
- Not yet classified: publisher listing with no abstract yet
Provisional label from fixed rules applied to the collected text; research items are re-graded by our review pipeline. Method
