MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269981638 · doi:10.3138/jvme.0115-005r1

Does Mathematical Precision Ensure Valid Grades? What Every Veterinary Medical Educator Should Know

2015· article· en· W2269981638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth D. Royal, Thomas R. Guskey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)UnderpinningVariety (cybernetics)Medical educationMathematics educationComputer scienceVeterinary medicinePsychologyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veterinary medical educators use a variety of methods for calculating student grades. Most educators assume grades will be valid as long as the mathematical calculations underpinning each grading method are correct. The purpose of this "teaching tip" is to demonstrate and discuss how mathematical precision does not necessarily equate to truthful scores that accurately reflect what students know or can do. We contend that this topic is of considerable importance to all veterinary educators who assign grades, and to academic deans who make decisions about grading policies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207