MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SAILS, Take 2: An Exploration of the “Build Your Own Test” Standardized IL Testing Option for Canadian Institutions

2018· article· en· W2884589685 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rumi Graham, Nicole Eva, Sandra Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Information Literacy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Standardized testPsychologyMathematics educationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several standardized and validated information literacy (IL) tests have been developed for use in U.S. post-secondary contexts, but fewer choices exist for schools outside of the U.S. In an earlier study (Cowan, Graham, & Eva, 2016) the authors explored IL testing at a Canadian university using the international version of the SAILS Cohort test. This article describes a second study that used the Build Your Own Test (BYOT)—a customizable version of the SAILS Individual Scores test—to evaluate undergraduate students’ IL learning. Pros and cons of using the Cohort and BYOT versions of SAILS are discussed, with the aim of providing guidance for other schools interested in pursuing such testing. The authors found the BYOT allowed them to better gauge the extent to which individual students’ IL ability levels changed over the course of one term.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Information LiteracySame topicLibrary Science and Information SystemsFrench-language works237,207