Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic item generation represents a relatively new but rapidly evolving research area where cognitive and psychometric theories are used to produce tests that include items generated using computer technology. Automatic item generation requires two steps. First, test development specialists create item models, which are comparable to templates or prototypes, that highlight the features or elements in the assessment task that must be manipulated. Second, these item model elements are manipulated to generate new items with the aid of computer-based algorithms. With this two-step process, hundreds or even thousands of new items can be created from a single item model. The purpose of our article is to describe seven different but related topics that are central to the development and use of item models for automatic item generation. We start by defining item model and highlighting some related concepts; we describe how item models are developed; we present an item model taxonomy; we illustrate how item models can be used for automatic item generation; we outline some benefits of using item models; we introduce the idea of an item model bank; and finally, we demonstrate how statistical procedures can be used to estimate the parameters of the generated items without the need for extensive field or pilot testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.128 | 0.419 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".