MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171605931 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v49i3.54980

Behavior Domains in Theory and in Practice

2003· article· en· W2171605931 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roderick P. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsItem response theoryDomain (mathematical analysis)Set (abstract data type)Measure (data warehouse)PsychologyFunction (biology)Classical test theoryTest theoryTest (biology)PsychometricsFoundation (evidence)Differential item functioningCognitive psychologyDomain theoryEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceData miningDevelopmental psychologyDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of a behavior domain is a reasonable and essential foundation for psychometric work based on true score theory, the linear model of common factor analysis, and the nonlinear models of item response theory. Investigators applying these models to test data generally treat the true scores or factors or traits as abstractive psychological attributes: common properties of the items, possibly with some inconsistency between their practice and their theoretical statements. A countably infinite item domain defines an attribute uniquely, and a function of the domain item scores gives an identified measure of it, to be estimated from a finite set of item scores, with a defined error of measurement. In test development the investigator must consider and justify the assumption that an item domain exists for the specific measurement application and is large enough to be treated as infinite for that application.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.022
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207