MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606446642

The Impact of Standardised Testing on Later High Stakes Test Outcomes

2017· preprint· en· W2606446642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Regan-Stansfield

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoycottQuarter (Canadian coin)Test (biology)Argument (complex analysis)PsychologyEducational attainmentDemographic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineGeographyEconomic growthPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standardised tests are a common, yet contentious, feature of many countries’ schooling systems. In May 2010, over one-quarter of English primary schools boycotted that year’s mandatory age eleven standardised tests (colloquially known as SATs tests). This paper investigates the plausibly causal effect of participation in standardised testing on later end-of-schooling qualification (GCSE) attainment. After controlling for non-random boycott participation, and relying on a selection-on-observables argument, evidence is found of a statistically significant negative effect of boycott participation on various measures of GCSE attainment. Amongst other findings, pupils are estimated to be 0.7 per-cent less likely to achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C due to not sitting their age eleven SATs tests. Thus, evidence is found that individual pupils’ subsequent attainment benefits from their own prior participation in standardised tests.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207