A Methodology for Generating Items in Three or More Languages Using Automated Processes
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
Educational and psychological tests are administered to examinees in different languages across different cultures throughout the world. The challenges inherent to translating and adapting multilingual and multicultural assessment are enormous. The purpose of this paper is to describe and illustrate a new methodology that can be used to generate items in multiple languages. The method is presented as a three-stage process where, first, context translation begins when the context of the model required for item generation is translated or adapted appropriately for each language group; second, words and key phrases are translated; third, content assembly occurs where computer algorithms place the words and key phrases into the context-specific item model. Then, we demonstrate how the method can be applied to a diverse sample of item models in math and science to generate thousands of multilingual test items. Finally, results are presented from a substantive review designed to evaluate item quality which revealed that 91% of the generated items were judged to be acceptable by two bilingual test development specialists. Directions for future research are also presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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