MISE À L'ESSAI D'UN MODÈLE ÉDUMÉTRIQUE D'ÉVALUATION DES APPRENTISSAGES SCOLAIRES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME. Le present article propose un modele edumetrique de qualite des resultats d'evaluation des apprentissages en salle de classe. De l'avis des participants, les quatre composantes du concept de justesse sont toutes pertinentes a l'obtention de resultats justes. Bien que modeste, l'experience confirme la compatibilite du modele avec la nature contemporaine de l'apprentissage. De ce point de vue, il s'avere superieur aux criteres de validite et de fidelite presentement utilises en education. ABSTRACT. This article presents an edumetric Classroom Assessment Result Quality Model. In the opinion of participants, the four elements of the concept of are all equally important in obtaining sound results. Although modest in scope, the experiment confirms that the Model is compatible with modem learning. In this respect, the concept of soundness can be shown to be superior to the criteria of validity and reliability which are presently used in education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".