MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234586427 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14637408.v1

Cultural Bias in Standard Tests of Mental Abilities

2021· preprint· en· W4234586427 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith K. Bernhard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)PsychologyEducational equityChristian ministrySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Para. 1 of Introduction] Despite calls for equity and freedom from bias in education, the goal of fair outcomes has proven to be elusive. In a 1987 policy statement, the Ontario Ministry of Education focused on the issue of fair treatment of all students and the dangers of culturally biased tests, but the problem continues. In major Candian cities, school dropout rates among certain minority groups of both white and non-white races continue to be disproportionately high (Mackay and Myles, 1989; Radwansky, 1988; Wright and Tsuji, 1984). The low aspirations and expectations of these groups also reflect inequitable school experiences. Attitudes about one's self, one's abilities, and one's future are formed in the earliest years of school, and persist and are reinforced in later primary and secondary education. Early childhood educators would do well to become aware of the ways in which some well-known and standard educational assessment tools contribute to bias in the educational process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207