Number-Right, Item-Response, and Finite-State Scoring: Robustness with Respect to Lack of Equally Classifiable Options and Item Option Independence
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
The robustness of number-right; one-, two-, and three-parameter item-response; finite-state; and partial-credit scoring was examined with respect to the violation of the equally classifiable options and option independence made in finite-state scoring. All other assumptions underlying the use of these scoring models were met for each of four sub-tests that varied in terms of the violations. Analysis of the responses of 1,232 high school seniors on the subtests revealed that the number-right and one-, two-, and three-parameter scoring methods were equally sensitive to the presence of best answers (lack of option independence) and that the number-right and one- and two-parameter methods were equally sensitive to the presence of absurd option and stem-option connections (unequal classification of options) and pairs of similar or opposite options (lack of option independence, unequal classification of options). The three-parameter model and the finite-state scoring models were adversely sensitive to the presence of testwiseness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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