The Comparison of the Equated Tests Scores by Using Various Covariates using Bayesian Nonparametric Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is based on obtaining equated scores by using covariates in the Bayesian nonparametric model. As covariates in the study, gender, mathematics self-efficacy scores, and common item scores were used. The distributions were obtained for all score groups. Hellinger Distance was calculated to obtain the distances between the distributions of equated scores by using covariates and the distribution of the target test scores. These distances were compared with the distributions of equated scores obtained from methods based on Item Response Theory. The study was conducted on Canadian and Italian samples of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012. PARSCALE and IRTEQ were used for classical methods, and R was used for Bayesian nonparametric model. When gender, mathematics self-efficacy scores, and common item scores were used as covariates in the model, distance values of obtained equated scores to target test scores were close to each other, but their distributions were different. The closest distribution to target test scores was achieved when gender and mathematics self-efficacy scores were used together as covariates in the model, and the farthest distributions were obtained from item response theory methods. As a result of the research, it was determined that the model is more informative than the classical methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".