MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919446416 · doi:10.18162/ritpu.2009.159

10.18162/ritpu.2009.159

2016· dataset· fr· W2919446416 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Lightstone, Steven M. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedataset
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPencil (optics)Multiple choiceTest (biology)Significant differencePsychologyCognitionMathematics educationComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies were conducted to assess meta-cognitive and individual difference influences on students’ choice of writing tests in paper-and-pencil or computer-administered format. In Study 1, university students chose the test format for an accounting exam (paper-and-pencil or computer). In Study 2, students disclosed their reasons for their choice of test format, predicted their scores on the first test and provided confidence ratings for their predictions. The results of both studies show that the reasons for choosing a computer vs. a paper-and-pencil test format differ, and that both choice and performance can be explained to some extent by individual difference and meta-cognitive factors.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5110.239

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207