Gender bias in the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study 2003 (TIMMS) for Canadian students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a secondary data analysis of the Trends \nin Mathematics and Science Study 2003 (TIMSS) to determine \nif there is a gender bias, unbalanced number of items \nsuited to the cognitive skill of one gender, and to compare \nperformance by location. Results of the Grade 8, math \nportion of the test were examined. \nItems were coded as verbal, spatial, verbal /spatial or \nneither and as conventional or unconventional. A Kruskal- \nWallis was completed for each category, comparing \nperformance of students from Ontario, Quebec, and \nSingapore. A Factor Analysis was completed to determine if \nthere were item categories with similar characteristics. \nGender differences favouring males were found in the \nverbal conventional category for Canadian students and in \nthe spatial conventional category for students in Quebec. \nThe greatest differences were by location, as students in \nSingapore outperformed students from Canada in all areas \nexcept for the spatial unconventional category. Finally, \nwhether an item is conventional or unconventional is more \nimportant than whether the item is verbal or spatial. \nResults show the importance of fair assessment for the \ngenders in both the classroom and on standardized tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".