MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113150213 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v54i3.55237

Alignment of Scores on Large-Scale Assessments and Report-Card Grades

2008· article· en· W2113150213 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReport cardPsychologyScale (ratio)Rating scaleMathematics educationStatisticsClinical psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPedagogyGeographyMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined how much agreement there was between scores from large-scale mandated assessments and report-card grades for 14,776 students in grades 3, 6, and 9 of a district in which conditions were conducive to alignment of assessments. We found significant mean differences between internal and external assessments: effect sizes were .29 to .63 in grades 3-6 and .10 to.30 in grade 9. Spearman correlations were in the .32-.59 range. Chance-adjusted agreement was low. Report-card grades were consistently higher than external assessments for grades 3 and 6 students and consistently lower for grade 9 students.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.328 · 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