MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575966912 · doi:10.1787/5k9fhndspvf1-en

Technical Feasibility of Reporting YITS 2010 Skill Assessment Results on the PISA 2000 Reading Scale

2012· paratext· en· W1575966912 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

VenueOECD education working papers · 2012
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Scale (ratio)Computer sciencePsychologyMathematics educationData scienceGeographyCartographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the feasibility of reporting scores of a test based on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000 instrument that was administered to a sample of 25-year-old Youth in Transition Survey (YITS) respondents on the PISA scale. Each of these respondents also participated in PISA 2000. The study examines the considerations for estimating proficiency estimates for the YITS 2010 sample and describes the methods recommended for analyzing the data. The results indicate that, despite much higher performance, there is no ceiling effect in the YITS 2010 sample for the PISA items. Although the estimated scores for the YITS 2010 sample should not be misconstrued as true =PISA results,‘ there is no technical impediment to reporting them on the PISA scale and examining the differences between these results and the PISA 2000 results.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.335 · 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