irmion
সাহায্যLog in একটি টুল খুঁজুন

STEM REASONING AND EVIDENCE WORKBENCH

Claim Evidence Reasoning Analyzer

Apply a transparent structural CER rule to anonymous response counts while separating supplied sources from relevant evidence.

Runs in this browser tabEditable downloadUp to 500 structured rows and 30,000 characters per field. Use anonymous or fictional labels.

Learning inputs

Build the claim evidence reasoning analyzer

Enter a fictional analysis label, minimum relevant-evidence count, and minimum reasoning-link count. Add response | yes or no stated claim | supplied source count | relevant evidence count | reasoning-link count | complete or review classification rows. Relevant evidence cannot exceed supplied sources. Use anonymous labels and count only evidence and links visible under the local rubric.

Generation uses only the information entered in this tab. It does not fetch sources or make student decisions.

Review output

Your learning artifact appears here

Load the worked example to inspect realistic inputs, or enter anonymous classroom or laboratory evidence. Results remain in this browser tab until you copy or download them.

Transparent method

How the claim evidence reasoning analyzer works

Let C be true when an explicit claim is present, E be the counted relevant evidence items, and R be the counted reasoning links. Under the selected planning rule, complete equals C and E at least the evidence minimum and R at least the link minimum. Supplied source count is reported separately and bounds E but does not contribute automatically. A supported classification matches the disclosed structural rule only. Complete does not mean correct, persuasive, independent, ethical, or grade-ready; review does not identify a stable learner deficit. Read the response and sources, inspect whether each item supports the claim, test the reasoning warrant, consider alternatives, and apply the full course rubric with accessible feedback.

  1. 01
    Before generation

    Confirm the question, approved source, units, notation, signs, response coding, model assumptions, and review threshold. Keep an unchanged copy of measurements or learner evidence.

  2. 02
    During review

    Run the worked example, inspect every intermediate row, and compare the result with a hand calculation, diagram, representation, periodic table, or approved laboratory method.

  3. 03
    Before use

    Record the method, assumptions, uncertainty, units, classifications, and flagged rows. Verify the editable report independently before instruction, assessment, or laboratory use.

How to interpret the result

Claim Evidence Reasoning Analyzer

Before generation

Use for a quick structural inventory of claim-evidence-reasoning responses before a teacher reads their substance. It can reveal a missing claim, sparse relevant evidence, or absent explanatory links. It does not judge scientific accuracy, evidence quality, logical validity, counterclaims, source credibility, writing quality, originality, language proficiency, learner ability, or final rubric scores.

Worked example

Response A states a claim, uses two relevant items from three sources, and includes one link, so it meets a two-evidence and one-link rule. Response B has only one relevant item. Response C lacks a claim. The final response has two relevant items but zero reasoning links, so its entered complete classification is flagged for review.

Formula or methodology

Let C be true when an explicit claim is present, E be the counted relevant evidence items, and R be the counted reasoning links. Under the selected planning rule, complete equals C and E at least the evidence minimum and R at least the link minimum. Supplied source count is reported separately and bounds E but does not contribute automatically.

How to interpret the result

A supported classification matches the disclosed structural rule only. Complete does not mean correct, persuasive, independent, ethical, or grade-ready; review does not identify a stable learner deficit. Read the response and sources, inspect whether each item supports the claim, test the reasoning warrant, consider alternatives, and apply the full course rubric with accessible feedback.

Common mistakes

Do not count every quoted sentence as relevant evidence, confuse a source list with evidence use, count repeated assertions as reasoning, infer quality from length, expose learner names, apply one threshold across unlike tasks, accept a false claim because structure is complete, or let the count replace reading. Annotate claim, evidence, warrant, limits, and counterevidence directly.

CAST guidance on assessment design and learner variability

Learning boundary

A calculated signal still requires subject review

This browser-local workbench applies only the disclosed rules. It cannot diagnose a learner, certify an experiment, establish a chemical structure, or replace teacher, laboratory, and safety judgment.

Review checklist

Human review before educational use

  • Every value, symbol, unit, classification, date, and response matches the source evidence.
  • The disclosed model matches the course method and intended question.
  • Intermediate rows and conflicts have been inspected rather than using only the headline.
  • A teacher or learner verifies the report independently and records corrections.

Practical questions

Claim Evidence Reasoning Analyzer questions

Does Nirmion upload these inputs?

No. Processing occurs in the current browser tab. Avoid personal information and retain authoritative records only in the school-approved system.

Can this result prove understanding or a scientific law?

No. It describes entered evidence under one disclosed rule. Compare several evidence sources and ask for reasoning before drawing a conclusion.

Can I submit the downloaded report as finished work?

Treat it as an editable calculation aid. Show your own reasoning, cite required sources, and follow the course method and academic-integrity rules.