MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Do School‐Level Scores From Large‐Scale Assessments Really Measure?

2002· article· en· W2002384848 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

VenueEducational Measurement Issues and Practice · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Scale (ratio)Variance (accounting)PsychologyCognitionMeasure (data warehouse)Subject (documents)IllusionMathematics educationCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although assessments of mathematics, reading, and writing are assumed to measure distinct academic skills, this may be difficult owing to the pervasive influence of general ability on performance. Factor analyses of school‐level data from 14 large‐scale assessment programs revealed that 80% of the variance in mathematics, reading, and writing scores was due to a common, underlying factor. Multiple regression analyses confirmed that scores contribute little information that is unique to a particular subject (6% or less). Although different assessments may create the illusion of providing unique information, they may be tapping into generic cognitive abilities that cut across content areas. These results raise suspicions about the value and validity of interpretations based on school‐level subject area scores.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.214 · 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