MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977206605 · doi:10.1103/physrevstper.7.010114

Development of the Concise Data Processing Assessment

2011· article· en· W1977206605 on OpenAlex
James Day, D. A. Bonn

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)Index (typography)Range (aeronautics)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Process (computing)StatisticsReliability engineeringPsychologyPower (physics)Mathematics educationEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Concise Data Processing Assessment (CDPA) was developed to probe student abilities related to the nature of measurement and uncertainty and to handling data. The diagnostic is a ten question, multiple-choice test that can be used as both a pre-test and post-test. A key component of the development process was interviews with students, which were used to both uncover common modes of student thinking and validate item wording. To evaluate the reliability and discriminatory power of this diagnostic, we performed statistical tests focusing on both item analysis (item difficulty index, item discrimination index, and point-biserial coefficient) and on the entire test (test reliability and Ferguson's delta). Scores on the CDPA range from chance (for novices) to about 80% (for experts), indicating that it possesses good dynamic range. Overall, the results indicate that the CDPA is a reliable assessment tool for measuring targeted abilities in undergraduate physics students.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.625
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.002 · 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