Test decisions over time: tracking validity
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
This study took a grounded theory approach in investigating the relationship between the criteria indigenously drawn for an English for academic purposes (EAP) test and the outcomes of test decisions over time. Test outcomes were examined across three theoretical samples: (1) an EAP teacher-identified sample of misplaced students; (2) a database-generated sample that matched the key variables in the EAP teachers’ sample; and (3) a random sample of test-takers drawn from a single administration of the test. Although analysis revealed two sources of testing error, namely, under-specification of bands in the writing sub-test scale and an under-valuing of the listening sub-test in the overall weighted average of the test, it also revealed the relationship between key patterns of performance on the test and performance in university classrooms that signposted students at risk. As such, the study provides evidence of the usefulness of inquiry that examines the relationship between EAP test performance and the use of English as a mediating tool in academic performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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