MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153720865 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v49i3.54984

Which Model is Best? Robustness Properties to Justify Model Choice Among Unidimensional IRT Models under Item Parameter Drift

2003· article· en· W2153720865 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Rupp, Bruno D. Zumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)EconometricsItem response theoryStatistical physicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPsychometricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article extends recent research on item parameter drift by investigating the robustness properties of basic unidimensional IRT models. Specifically, the article explores whether it is possible to advocate the consistent choice of one model over another based on its robustness properties under drift. On the one hand, it is shown that the biases that are introduced due to drift are minor for most practically relevant circumstances across all models. On the other hand, it is shown that the mathematical structure of the biases is theoretically complex so that globally superior performance of one model over another is observed only under restrictive side conditions.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.342
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.342
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.443
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.042 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207