Qualités métriques des résultats académiques universitaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Cet article presente une synthese des ecrits qui attestent que les resultats obtenus par les etudiants dans le cadre d’une formation universitaire, et rapportes au dossier academique, sont valides, fiables et en lien avec les objectifs des programmes. Sont passes en revue la validite et la fiabilite des resultats academiques, les indices utilises, les principales procedures, ainsi que les principaux constats au niveau universitaire. Mots cles : resultats academiques, validite, fiabilite, analyse factorielle, assurance qualite English title : Validity et fiability of grades : A review Abstract This paper reviews studies that claim that results obtained by students during university schooling, as reported in their academic files, are valid, reliable and related to the program objectives. The themes examined include the validity and reliability of grades, the indices used, the main procedures, and some important aspects concerning university education. Key words : grades, validity, fidelity, reliability, factorial analysis, quality assurance
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".