MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896763700 · doi:10.1007/s11336-018-9639-4

Optimal Scores: An Alternative to Parametric Item Response Theory and Sum Scores

2018· article· en· W2896763700 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychometrika · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsItem response theoryNonparametric statisticsParametric statisticsTest theoryMathematicsStatisticsEconometricsPsychometricsClassical test theoryTest (biology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to discuss nonparametric item response theory scores in terms of optimal scores as an alternative to parametric item response theory scores and sum scores. Optimal scores take advantage of the interaction between performance and item impact that is evident in most testing data. The theoretical arguments in favor of optimal scoring are supplemented with the results from simulation experiments, and the analysis of test data suggests that sum-scored tests would need to be longer than an optimally scored test in order to attain the same level of accuracy. Because optimal scoring is built on a nonparametric procedure, it also offers a flexible alternative for estimating item characteristic curves that can fit items that do not show good fit to item response theory models.

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 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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.503
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.503
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.023
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.140 · 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