Comparing Performance-Based Accountability Models: A Canadian Example.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intention of Performance ‐ Based Accountability (PBA) policies is to foster school changes to enhance student learning and success. The influence of variation in these approaches, however, has not been empirically determined. This article employs a new conceptual framework to describe PBA models and compare them across con ‐ texts. We conducted a comparative analysis, finding three kinds of PBA models exist in Canada. In this article, we consider the policy ‐ level contextual differences coordi ‐ nating large ‐ scale, provincial, student testing and the use of results, using Canada as an example. Key words: large ‐ scale assessment, policy, using data for decision making, standards L’intention des politiques de responsabilisation basee sur la performance (RBP) est de favoriser, au sein de l’ecole, des changements qui ameliorent l’apprentissage et le succes des eleves. L’influence de la variation dans ces approches n’a pas ete deter ‐ minee de maniere empirique. Dans cet article, les auteures presentent un nouveau cadre conceptuel pour decrire les modeles de RBP et les comparent dans divers con ‐ textes. Leur analyse comparative leur a permis de decouvrir l’existence de trois types de modeles de RBP au Canada. Prenant le Canada comme exemple, les auteures se penchent ici sur les differences contextuelles au niveau des politiques quant a la coor ‐ dination des epreuves communes provinciales et a l’utilisation des resultats. Mots cles : epreuves communes, utilisation de donnees pour la prise de decisions, normes
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".