MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reporting test results

2014· book· en· W4234048446 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

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)Flow chartScale (ratio)ChartMedical physicsPsychologyMedicineMedical educationEngineeringStatisticsCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Journals are becoming increasingly more stringent in their requirements for what must be reported in articles about the psychometric properties of scales. This chapter reviews three of the most commonly used guidelines; the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, the STARD initiative (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS). It abstracts portions of these guidelines that are most relevant for scales used in research settings. These cover the reporting of test development, reliability, and validity. The chapter also has a flow chart, adapted from STARD, that should be included when submitting a manuscript about scale development to a journal.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.906
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.906
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.750
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207