MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582325117 · doi:10.1145/3013499.3013500

The Compound Nature of Novice Programming Assessments

2017· article· en· W2582325117 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Andrew Petersen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultitudeComputer scienceMathematics educationData sciencePsychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure rates in introductory programming courses are notoriously high, and researchers have noted that students struggle with the assessments that we typically use to evaluate programming ability. Current assessment practices in introductory courses consist predominantly of questions that involve a multitude of different concepts and facts. Students with fragile knowledge in any of the areas required may be unable to produce a working solution, even when they may know most of the required material. These assessments also make it difficult for a teacher to distinguish between the specific information that a student does and does not know.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.219
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.219
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations65
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207