Development and application of a concept test on the subject of stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a concept test on the subject of stars that is suitable for model analysis and to evaluate the conformity of this model. The study was performed using a screening model, which is a type of quantitative research method. The study also tried to fill the gap in the existing literature regarding the use of quantitative methods. To develop the test, existing studies on stars were first examined; interviews with candidates who were teachers were conducted; and finally, necessary amendments to test items were made after referring to experts’ opinions. To assure its validity and reliability, the test was applied to a total of 175 candidates who were studying at schools of education in the departments of science teaching of three different universities to become teachers; all candidates took astronomy courses and were educated on the subject matter. The final form of the test was comprised of 26 multiple-choice questions, each with 5 possible answers. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the test was calculated to be 0.735. In addition, the mean strength of the test was found to be 0.370 and the distinctiveness was found to be 0.390. Statistical analyses revealed that the concept test developed in this study is a valid and reliable test that conforms to the model analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".