MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069642353 · doi:10.1080/14759390300200155

Inter-rater reliability of an electronic discussion coding system

2003· article· en· W2069642353 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory MacKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Pedagogy and Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoding (social sciences)Inter-rater reliabilityReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyComputer scienceMathematics educationApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMathematicsRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A ‘cognote’ system has been developed for coding electronic discussion groups and promoting critical thinking. Previous literature has provided an account of the strategy as applied to several academic settings. This article addresses the research around establishing the inter-rater reliability of the cognote system. The findings suggest three indicators of reliability, namely: 1. that raters assign similar grades to students' discussion group contributions; 2. that raters predominantly assign the same cognotes to students' discussion group contributions and 3. that raters are selecting in excess of 50% of the same text in assigning the same cognotes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Pedagogy and EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207