PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy
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
Abstract This article introduces the essential features of the science component of 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Administered every 3 years, PISA alternates emphasis on Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy. In 2006, PISA emphasized science. This article discusses PISA's definition of scientific literacy, the three competencies that constitute scientific literacy, the contexts used for assessment units and items, the role of scientific knowledge, and the importance placed on attitude toward science. PISA 2006 included a student test, a student questionnaire, and a questionnaire for school administrators. The student test employed a balanced incomplete block design involving thirteen 30‐minute clusters of items, including nine science clusters. The 13 clusters were arranged into thirteen 2‐hour booklets and each sampled student was assigned one booklet at random. Mean literacy scores are presented for all participating countries, and the percentages of OECD students at the six levels of proficiency are given for the combined scale and for the competency scales. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 865–883, 2009
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 | 0.114 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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