MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192789200 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.517155

Binary Restrictive Threshold Method for Item Exposure Control in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing

2021· article· en· W3192789200 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

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBinary numberCognitionControl (management)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although classification accuracy is a critical issue in cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing, attention has increasingly shifted to item exposure control to ensure test security. In this study, we developed the binary restrictive threshold (BRT) method to balance measurement accuracy and item exposure. In addition, a simulation study was conducted to evaluate its performance. The results indicated that the BRT method performed better than the restrictive progressive (RP) and stratified dynamic binary searching (SDBS) approaches but worse than the restrictive threshold (RT) method in terms of classification accuracy. With respect to item exposure control, the BRT method exhibited noticeably stronger performance compared with the RT method, even though its performance was not as high as that of the RP and SDBS 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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.134 · 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