MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754500361 · doi:10.1002/cad.20209

The Current Status of Peer Assessment Techniques and Sociometric Methods

2017· review· en· W2754500361 on OpenAlexaff
William M. Bukowski, Melisa Castellanos, Ryan J. Persram

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Child and Adolescent Development · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociometryPsychologySociometric statusPoint (geometry)Peer assessmentCognitive psychologySocial psychologyMathematics educationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current issues in the use of peer assessment techniques and sociometric methods are discussed. Attention is paid to the contributions of the four articles in this volume. Together these contributions point to the continual level of change and progress in these techniques. They also show that the paradigm underlying these methods has been unchanged for decades. It is argued that this domain is ripe for a paradigm change that takes advantage of recent developments in statistical techniques and technology.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.128 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Child and Adolescent DevelopmentSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207