MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Large‐Scale Assessment

2013· other· en· W1565883978 on OpenAlexaff
Janna Fox

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityScale (ratio)BureaucracyPoliticsTest (biology)Quality (philosophy)Language assessmentPolitical sciencePublic relationsPsychologyComputer scienceMathematics educationEpistemologyGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large‐scale language assessment affects the lives of millions of test takers every year. As a means of achieving fairness in large‐scale tests and testing practices, language testers have traditionally focused on uniformity and technical quality, and large‐scale language assessment has increasingly been associated with political, bureaucratic, or accountability agendas. However, some scholars suggest that it can serve pedagogic and learning purposes as well. More recently, considerations of large‐scale language assessment have been shaped by a more critical view of the contexts in which it occurs and of the sociopolitical motives it serves.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2490.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.348 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207