Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some teachers view assessment as a necessary evil. Some view assessment as their only real tool of discipline and power. Still other teachers view assessment as an integral part of C&I, and the pivotal practice around which teaching methods and communication turns. Most teachers appreciate local, teacher-controlled assessment and loathe the high stakes assessment that produces anxiety, fear, and competitive tactics. For many administrators, parents and politicians, assessment has its justifications in accountability to standards. Indeed, it is difficult to navigate through the various forms of assessment and perspectives on assessment that teachers face on a daily basis. Everyday assessment entails hundreds of observations that teachers make of their students. This involves informal discussions, feedback and deliberate, staged activities and performances. Assessment involves volumes of documentary evidence, from daily assignments, quizzes, and tests to observations, projects, and digital artifacts. In its most stereotypical form, assessment in technology studies simply meant putting a mark on a completed project, much like a merchant places a price on a product. By current standards, this was inauthentic assessment. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, authentic assessment has transformed the way we think about and carry out assessments in the schools. Technologies of assessment had similar effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".