MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Classification Consistency and Accuracy for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment

2012· article· en· W2139990047 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

VenueJournal of Educational Measurement · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Reliability (semiconductor)ComputationSubtractionStatistical inferenceFraction (chemistry)InferenceSampling (signal processing)Computer scienceStatisticsCognitive testArtificial intelligenceCognitionMathematicsData miningPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmPsychologyArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces procedures for the computation and asymptotic statistical inference for classification consistency and accuracy indices specifically designed for cognitive diagnostic assessments. The new classification indices can be used as important indicators of the reliability and validity of classification results produced by cognitive diagnostic assessments. For tests with known or previously calibrated item parameters, the sampling distributions of the two new indices are shown to be asymptotically normal. To illustrate the computations of the new indices, we apply them to the real diagnostic data from a fraction subtraction test (Tatsuoka). We also use simulated data to evaluate their performances and distributional properties.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.532
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.532
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.702
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.146 · 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