Cognitive diagnostic assessment via Bayesian evaluation of informative diagnostic hypotheses.
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
There exist diverse approaches that can be used for cognitive diagnostic assessment, such as mastery testing, constrained latent class analysis, rule space methodology, diagnostic cognitive modeling, and person-fit analysis. Each of these approaches can be used within 1 of the 4 psychometric perspectives on diagnostic testing discussed by Borsboom (2008), that is, the dimensional, diagnostic, constructivist, and causal system perspectives. Bayesian evaluation of informative diagnostic hypotheses is an alternative for each of the other approaches that is more flexible in the diagnostic hypotheses that can be evaluated, and it can be used in each of the 4 psychometric perspectives on diagnostic testing. After being formulated, informative diagnostic hypotheses are evaluated by means of the Bayes factor using only the data from the person to be diagnosed. Already, relatively small diagnostic tests render Bayes factors that provide convincing evidence in favor of 1 of the diagnostic hypotheses under consideration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.001 |
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.
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