Using Connectionist Models to Evaluate Examinees’ Response Patterns to Achievement Tests
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attribute hierarchy method (AHM) applied to assessment engineering is described. It is a psychometric method for classifying examinees’ test item responses into a set of attribute mastery patterns associated with different components in a cognitive model of task performance. Attribute probabilities, computed using a neural network, can be estimated for each examinee thereby providing specific information about the examinee’s attribute-mastery level. The pattern recognition approach described in this study relies on an explicit cognitive model to produce the expected response patterns. The expected response patterns serve as the input to the neural network. The model also yields the cognitive test specifications. These specifications identify the examinees’ attribute patterns which are used as output for the neural network. The purpose of the statistical pattern recognition analysis is to estimate the probability that an examinee possess specific attribute combinations based on their observed item response patterns. Two examples using student response data from a sample of algebra items on the SAT illustrate our pattern recognition approach.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it