MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259831407 · doi:10.14288/1.0055674

The validity and applicability of two modified cloze procedures (beginning of the page procedure and "instant" beginning of the page procedure) measured against the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and equated with the cloze procedure and Fry Readability Graph

2010· article· en· W2259831407 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Parkinson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstantTest (biology)Reading (process)Computer scienceNatural language processingLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This correlational study examined the Beginning of the Page Procedure (B.O.P.P) and the "instant" Beginning of the Page Procedure as measures for assessing readability: One hundred ninety-six grade nine students (106 male and 90 female) took part in the study and their scores on the cloze procedure, the B.O.P.P. and the "instant" B.O.P.P. were correlated with the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Form A - Blue Level (hereafter referred to as the Stanford Diagnostic ). The Stanford Diagnostic was used as the anchor test and the students were randomly assigned to each of the three groups; Analyses included the calculation of means associated with the Stanford Diagnostic scores for each subgroup, and analysis of the variance between sexes within each subgroup. An equivalency table is provided which estimates the Stanford Diagnostic scores for a given cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. or "instant" B.O.P.P. score; Using the Stanford Diagnostic grade score equivalent to 40 percent on the cloze procedure, the readability level of the passage was determined. This was then compared to the readability level estimated by the Fry Graph. Respective correlations of .53 and .67 were found between the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. with the Stanford Diagnostic suggesting both are good indicators of the students' ability to handle the given passage. Similarly the Fry Graph and the Stanford Diagnostic, grade score equal to 40 percent on the cloze procedure, found the passages to be at virtually the same level of difficulty. All results however, were limited to the passage studied and should not be generalized to other materials. When a significance level of .05 was used no significant difference was found between the male and female performance levels on any of the tests administered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207