MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Illustrating the Utility of Differential Bundle Functioning Analyses to Identify and Interpret Group Differences on Achievement Tests

2001· article· en· W2119322254 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Gierl, Jeffrey Bisanz, Gay L. Bisanz, Keith A. Boughton, Shameem Nyla Khaliq

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Measurement Issues and Practice · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBundleDifferential (mechanical device)Interpretation (philosophy)PsychologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is differential bundle functioning and how is this different from differential item functioning? Can test specifications be used to identify and aid in the interpretation of differential bundle functioning? How can differential bundle functioning lead to an improved understanding of why groups perform differently on achievement tests?

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Measurement Issues and PracticeSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207