MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965747485 · doi:10.1007/bf02294370

Does Adaptive Testing Violate Local Independence?

2000· article· en· W1965747485 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Mislevy, Hua‐Hua Chang

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychometrika · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Computerized adaptive testingItem response theoryContext (archaeology)Conditional independenceNotationEconometricsSelection (genetic algorithm)MathematicsLocal independenceComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligencePsychometricsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Item response theory posits “local independence,” or conditional independence of item responses given item parameters and examinee proficiency parameters. The usual definition of local independence, however, addresses the context of fixed tests, and initially appears to yield incorrect response-pattern probabilities in the context of adaptive testing. The paradox is resolved by introducing additional notation to deal with the item selection mechanism.

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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.366
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.366
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.061 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations44
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychometrikaSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207