Large-Scale Assessment Outcomes in British Columbia, 1876-1999 [Abstract]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over 20 years, educators and administrators across North America have heatedly debated the value of large ‐ scale student assessment. Throughout the history of schooling in British Columbia, large ‐ scale student assessment outcomes have traditionally served to inform broader societal goals. Realistically, “assessment of” group learning (as opposed to classroom ‐ based “assessment for” individual learning) will continue as the government’s key focus. We also raise several unanswered questions such as the scope of assessment practices that include only numeracy and literacy or the achievement of elementary versus secondary students between 1976 and 1999, questions to move the decades ‐ old debate beyond its current stalemate. Key words: history, education, testing, achievement Depuis plus de 20 ans, pedagogues et administrateurs de tous les coins de l’Amerique du Nord debattent avec passion de la valeur des epreuves communes. Tout au long de l’histoire de l’education en Colombie ‐ Britannique, les resultats des epreuves communes ont servi a realiser des objectifs sociaux plus vastes. En fait, l’evaluation des apprentissages d’un groupe (par opposition a l’evaluation de l’apprentissage de chacun au sein d’une classe) va demeurer une priorite pour le gouvernement. Les auteurs soulevent en outre plusieurs questions laissees jusqu’ici sans reponse, tels l’eventail des pratiques d’evaluation portant seulement sur le calcul et la litteratie ou le rendement scolaire des eleves du primaire compare a celui des eleves du secondaire entre 1976 et 1999, autant de questions qui peuvent faire avancer le debat vieux de plusieurs decennies au ‐ dela de l’impasse actuelle. Mots cles : histoire, education, epreuves, reussite scolaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".