MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475052905 · doi:10.7202/1036330ar

La validité psychométrique : un regard global sur le concept centenaire, sa genèse, ses avatars

2016· article· fr· W2475052905 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nathalie André, Nathalie Loye, Louis Laurencelle

Bibliographic record

VenueMesure et évaluation en éducation · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis Alfred Binet, qui, sans parler de validité, présentait toutefois une conception pragmatique, utilitaire et empirique de la pertinence d’un test, le concept de validité est né et a beaucoup évolué. À partir d’une perspective historique du concept de validité psychométrique, cet article vise à en explorer de manière critique quelques facettes afin de dégager les différentes orientations définitionnelles, sans perdre de vue les démarches d’opérationnalisation qu’on leur associe.

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.065
Scholarly communication0.0180.022
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMesure et évaluation en éducationSame topicPsychological Testing and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207