MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740118780

OSH Certifications: Behind the Exams

2017· article· en· W2740118780 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl L. Marcham, Treasa M. Turnbeaugh, Nicola Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationForensic engineeringBusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• The process for developing and scoring a certification exam is complicated and uses a scientific and mathematical psychometric process to achieve defendable outcomes. • However, how much of the process is well understood by either the general public, employers or even safety and health professionals? • The information presented is intended to help the safety and health professional understand why and how a properly developed and administered certification exam shows the mark of excellence in the field of safety and health.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.008

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueScholarly Commons (Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University)Same topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207