MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283698056 · doi:10.1007/s11092-022-09389-9

Mapping the constellation of assessment discourses: a scoping review study on assessment competence, literacy, capability, and identity

2022· review· en· W4283698056 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Coombs, Christopher DeLuca

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)OperationalizationConstruct (python library)Authentic assessmentLiteracyRubricPedagogyIdentity (music)PsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyEpistemologySocial psychologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0230.026
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEducational Assessment Evaluation and AccountabilitySame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207