MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510641421

Developing a Taxonomy of Item Model Types to Promote Assessment Engineering

2008· article· en· W1510641421 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Gierl, Jiawen Zhou, Cecilia Alves

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access Journals at BC (Boston College)Same topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207