MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113547422

Assessment of a Master of Education Counselling Application Selection Process Using Rasch Analysis and Generalizability Theory

2014· article· en· W2113547422 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryRasch modelSelection (genetic algorithm)PsychologyItem response theoryProcess (computing)Rank (graph theory)Facet (psychology)Medical educationApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychometricsComputer scienceClinical psychologyArtificial intelligenceDevelopmental psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to evaluate an application selection process for a Master of Education counselling program in Canada using the Many-Facet Rasch Model (MFRM) and Generalizability Theory (G-Theory). Current literature pertaining specifically to counselling admissions is essentially absent. This study investigated the items used to score and rank applicants as well as rater characteristics for each of the members of the application selection committee. The design, results, and findings have implications for admissions procedures and practices at other universities within Canada. Overall, the MFRM and G-Theory functioned as appropriate measurement tools for assessing counselling admission items, raters, and applicants.

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)0.010
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.292 · 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