MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068327470 · doi:10.1080/09695940802164218

Self‐assessment in a technology‐supported environment: the case of grade 9 geography

2008· article· en· W2068327470 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John A. Ross, Michelle Starling

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Christian Studies
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSelf-efficacyPsychologyVariance (accounting)Self-assessmentPerceptionOutcome (game theory)Treatment and control groupsApplied psychologyMedical educationMathematics educationSocial psychologyMedicineStatisticsMathematicsAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the impact of self‐assessment training on student achievement and on computer self‐efficacy in a technology‐supported learning environment (grade 9 students using Global Information Systems software). We found that self‐assessment had a positive effect on student achievement, accounting for 25% of the variance across three measures. The treatment effect was as large for females as for males and for those with low initial self‐efficacy as it was for those with higher scores. In addition, self‐efficacy increased more in the control than in the treatment group. We interpreted the self‐efficacy results to be a positive outcome of the treatment: teachers may have used self‐assessment training to depress the inflated self‐perceptions of some teenagers.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessment in Education Principles Policy and PracticeSame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207