MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of the equivalence of conventional versus computer administration of the Test of Workplace Essential Skills

2006· article· en· W1820073293 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

VenueInternational Journal of Training and Development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Equivalence (formal languages)NumeracyReading (process)PsychologyComputerized adaptive testingComputer literacyRank (graph theory)Mathematics educationApplied psychologyLiteracyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyPedagogyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the equivalency of computer and conventional versions of the Test of Workplace Essential Skills (TOWES), a test of adult literacy skills in Reading Text, Document Use and Numeracy. Seventy‐three college students completed the computer version, and their scores were compared with those who had taken the test in the conventional paper‐and‐pencil mode. Scores for the two groups for all three subscales were equivalent based on their means and variances. Rank order equivalency was demonstrated for two of the three TOWES subscales (Reading Text and Document Use). Additionally, participants rated the computer version of the test as easy to use.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.323 · 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