MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784022277 · doi:10.3968/9985

A Study on the Content Validity of English Writing Tests of GDNMET in the Circumstance of Ten-Year New Curriculum Reform

2017· article· en· W2784022277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusContent validityTest (biology)CurriculumContent (measure theory)PsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyPsychometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Content validity is primary and essential to test. Writing covers 26.7% in English test in GDNMET and 20.8% in NMET. It will be meaningful to see whether English writing tests in the past 10 years have high validity or not by answering these questions: Is the writing content related to ECSCSMS and testing syllabus? Are the writing items representative? Is the writing content suitable for candidates of GDNMET. As a result, according to multidimensional analysis, English writing tests of GDNMET from 2007 to 2016 have high content validity. What’s more, there are some implications on the coming testing reform of GDNMET and English teaching in senior high schools.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicEducational Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207