The impact of probe variability on brief experimental analysis of reading skills.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of probe variability on the ability to replicate results in brief experimental analysis (BEA) of reading. In the first phase of the study, 41 first- and second- grade students completed 16 oral reading fluency probes. Calculations of probe difficulty were used to identify Low and High Variability probe sets. In the second phase of the study, the performance of 40 second- through fifth-grade students during two reading interventions was compared. The best-performing intervention for each student in the initial trial was replicated during a second trial for only 43% of students regardless of probe variability. The best-performing intervention was replicated for 60% of students when average performance across two trials was compared. Rules for determining the best-performing intervention in academic BEA should consider the standard error of measurement (SEM) for the probe set to be used, the reliability for absolute decisions using the probe set, and the number of replications relative to SEM needed to adequately demonstrate experimental control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it