Use of tree-based regression in the analyses of L2 reading test items
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore whether the results of Tree Based Regression (TBR) analyses, informed by a validated cognitive model, would enhance the interpretation of item difficulties in terms of the cognitive processes involved in answering the reading items included in two forms of the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB). A cognitive model was first generated to explain the performance of the MELAB reading items, and then validated by expert judgment and student verbal protocols. Next, the validated model was used in the TBR analyses to obtain the final trees for each form. Finally, the cognitive processes (i.e., reading processes and testing strategies) measured by each item were traced back for each item in the terminal nodes of each tree. The results revealed that TBR, informed by a supportable cognitive theory, appears to be a promising addition to statistical item analysis that can be effectively used to enhance the interpretation of item analyses results.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it