MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187181284

Re/Viewing Student Success in an Era of Accountability

2011· article· en· W2187181284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityStudent achievementPerspective (graphical)Success factorsPoint (geometry)Academic achievementMathematics educationStudent engagementPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogyComputer scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how student success is defined in Ontario schools. In the current era of accountability, student success is often narrowly defined in terms of student achievement on standardized tests. Alternate definitions of student success are explored by viewing student success from the vantage point of various stakeholders. Finally, the author suggests that we need to re/view student success by envisioning it from the perspective of the students themselves.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.042
Scholarly communication0.0230.017
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207