MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329376669 · doi:10.1177/1534508412452750

Differences in Growth on Math Curriculum-Based Measures Using Triannual Benchmarks

2012· article· en· W2329376669 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment for Effective Intervention · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationCurriculum-based measurementCurriculumLinear growthMathematics educationReading (process)PsychologyMathematics curriculumPhenomenonCurriculum developmentMathematicsTeaching methodPedagogyAlgorithmCurriculum mappingApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research on annual growth measured using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) indicates that growth may not be linear across the year and instead varies across semesters. Numerous studies in reading have confirmed this phenomenon with only one study of math computation yielding a similar finding. This study further investigated the presence of differences in growth across triannual benchmarks using math computation and concepts and applications CBMs. Results indicated that there are differences in growth across semesters at certain grade levels with only first-grade computation and fourth-grade concepts and applications yielding linear growth. The practical implications for understanding student growth and for setting progress goals are addressed and future directions for research are suggested.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.353 · 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