MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102131480 · doi:10.5539/ies.v4n1p166

Optimal Number of Gaps in C-Test Passages

2011· article· en· W2102131480 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsTest (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)StatisticsPsychologyFactorialMathematicsComputer scienceMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the issue of the optimal number of gaps in C-Test passages. An English C-Test battery containing four passages each having 40 blanks was given to 104 undergraduate students of English. The data were entered into SPSS spreadsheet. Out of the complete data with 160 blanks seven additional datasets were constructed. In the first dataset the scores on the first five gaps in each passage were aggregated and the rest of the gaps were ignored, as if each passage had only five gaps. In the second dataset the scores on the first ten gaps were aggregated. In each subsequent dataset five more gas were added. The eight datasets were analyzed and their psychometric properties were compared. The results showed that as the number of gaps in each passage increases item discrimination, reliability and factorial validity of the test increase accordingly. The implications for C-Test application and use are discussed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.348 · 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