MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898601704 · doi:10.5539/res.v10n4p144

Can the WRAT-4 Math Computation Subtest Predict Final Grade in College-Level Science

2018· article· en· W2898601704 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert John Zagar, Joseph W. Kovach, Ahmed Lakhani, Tracy A. Stone, Ishup Singh, Mariana Portela, Bernie Berroa

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Mathematics educationPsychologySocioeconomic statusCurriculumTest (biology)Achievement testClass (philosophy)Standardized testMathematicsPedagogyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventy-one, freshman through senior undergraduate college students 28 males and 43 females, M age =22.34 yr., SD = 4.20 in 5 different science classes were administered the Wide Range Achievement Test Fourth Edition (WRAT-4) Math Computation Subtest. Predictive validity coefficients were calculated relative to the criterion of the final class grade. The validity coefficient for the pre-course WRAT score was statistically significant. The WRAT-4 Math subtest can be used by instructors to examine performance on specific items to judge the appropriateness of a student’s placement in either entry-level or advanced science courses. However, high school grades are also a good predictor of completing the college curriculum and should be used along with math computation skills scores. Also motivation to complete college level science courses and socioeconomic status may be covariates in predicting college science final grade and eventual graduation from college.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207