MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond High-Stakes Assessment

2021· book-chapter· en· W3197741744 on OpenAlexaff
Breeda McGrath, Juan Carlos Mavo Navarro

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in higher education and professional development book series · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationSummative assessmentCertificationMedical educationFunction (biology)PsychologyStandardized testMeasure (data warehouse)Mathematics educationPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceFormative assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-stakes assessments in higher education serve a gate-keeping function for institutional and programmatic accreditation and determine outcomes for students on state boards and professional licensing and certification examinations. The assessments are defined by specific characteristics such as: a single, summative examination, a clear measure of success and failure, and significant consequences for candidates. Controversial aspects are related to whether they actually measure individual achievement or meaningful skills, the current mismatch between education and workplace needs, and the increased use of technology in instruction. Can high-stakes testing evolve and move with the times?

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)0.000
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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in higher education and professional development book seriesSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207