MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510641421

Developing a Taxonomy of Item Model Types to Promote Assessment Engineering

2008· article· en· W1510641421 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Journals at BC (Boston College) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTaxonomy (biology)Context (archaeology)SoftwareRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalMachine learningProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An item model serves as an explicit representation of the variables in an assessment task. An item model includes the stem, options, and auxiliary information. The stem is the part of an item which formulates context, content, and/or the question the examinee is required to answer. The options contain the alternative answers with one correct option and one or more incorrect options or distractors. The auxiliary information includes any additional material, in either the stem or option, required to generate an item, including texts, images, tables, and/or diagrams. In this study, we first present a taxonomy for item model development where variables in the stem are crossed with variables in the options to create a matrix of possible item model types. We then provide examples of each stem-by-option combination. Finally, we develop a software engine and apply the software to each item model type to generate multiple instances for each model.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it