MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612985156 · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12167

An applied examination of the computerized adaptive rating scale for assessing performance

2017· article· en· W2612985156 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Selection and Assessment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsPsychologyOfficerInter-rater reliabilityApplied psychologyRating scaleTeamworkScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)ChecklistFlexibility (engineering)Test (biology)Social psychologyStatisticsDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the present research, we developed and conducted a field test of the computerized adaptive rating scale (CARS) for assessing military officer performance. Participants completed the CARS and a behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) which were both designed to assess five leadership competencies (action orientation/initiative, communication, developing self and others, behavioral flexibility, and teamwork). We obtained data from 116 supervisors and 207 peers who provided ratings on 126 officer ratees. Although interrater reliability estimates were lower for CARS ratings on some competencies, there was a 20–25% improvement in standard error of measurement, the measurement precision in CARS ratings compared to the BARS. Results support findings from a previous lab study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.351 · 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