MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104638892 · doi:10.1177/0163278709356192

Identifying the Unauthorized Use of Examination Material

2009· article· en· W2104638892 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

VenueEvaluation & the Health Professions · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMedical Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutlierComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Item disclosure is one of the most serious threats to the validity of high stakes examinations, and identifying examinees that may have had unauthorized access to material is an important step in ensuring the integrity of an examination. A procedure was developed to identify examinees that potentially had unauthorized prior access to examination content. A standardized difference score is created by comparing examinee ability estimates for potentially exposed items to ability estimates for unexposed items. Outliers in this distribution are then flagged for further review. The steps associated with this procedure are described and followed by an example of applying the procedure. In addition, the use of this procedure is supported by the results of a simulation that models the use of unauthorized access to examination material.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.877
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.242 · 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