Comparison of student marks obtained by an assessment panel reveals generic problem-solving skills and academic ability as distinct skill sets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generic problem-solving skills have been identified as one of the key competencies valued by professional programmes, university students and their future employers. A lack of widely available and simple testing tools prevents assessment of the development of student problem-solving skills. As part of a research study, a generic problem-solving test was administered to 130 third-year science students during three consecutive years. A comparison between the scores students achieved in this test with their six academic marks obtained in this course showed no significant correlation. Lack of correlation between the problem-solving skill test scores and academic marks of students was confirmed in a larger population of students participating in a campus-wide study of generic problem-solving skills (n = 830). Problem solving and academic performance may represent two independent skill sets of students; testing problem-solving skills of students could be introduced to achieve a more comprehensive evaluation of undergraduate student progress and achievement.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it