MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100538100 · doi:10.1109/ism.2006.92

Improving Multimedia Innovative Item Types for Computer Based Testing

2006· article· en· W2100538100 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimediaComputer scienceAnimationGraphicsEntertainmentComputerized adaptive testingComputer graphicsPencil (optics)PerceptionHuman–computer interactionComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instead of computer games, animations, cartoons, and videos being used only for entertainment by kids, there is now an interest in using some of these media for educational purposes as well. Along with content creation, multimedia has potential for use in "innovative testing". Rather than traditional paper-and-pencil tests, audio, video and graphics are being conceived as alternative means for more effective testing in the future [1,17,21,28,29,30,33,42,44,49,50]. For example, we would like to use animation and games to help in learning concepts; consider how image, graphics and audio tools can be used for innovative testing; and develop techniques for measuring the impact of multimedia in improving performance or arousing interest in students. In this paper we discuss some examples of multimedia item types for testing, followed by a strategy for adaptive testing using those item types. We also show how techniques for perceptual evaluations can be used to improve strategies for adaptive testing

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207