MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283646149 · doi:10.36834/cmej.73734

Eleven ways to get a grip on the implementation of remote administration of high-stakes assessments

2022· article· en· W4283646149 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christina St‐Onge

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationAdministration (probate law)Political scienceHumanitiesPsychologyLibrary scienceComputer scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic rushed licensure and certification institutions, as well as many university programs, to integrate Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in their practices to allow for remote administrations of their exams independent of distancing measures. The Black Ice covered in this manuscript is the integration of ICTs to allow remote administration of high-stakes assessments in terms of its development, administration, and monitoring with the aim to promote the validity of score interpretation.

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)0.355
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.437
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3550.437
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0240.035
Open science0.0070.025
Research integrity0.0100.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207