MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285051177 · doi:10.56498/21202092

Genre-based Rubric for Peer Feedback

2020· article· en· W4285051177 on OpenAlexaff
Farhad Jafari Basmenj

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricArgumentativePeer feedbackComputer sciencePeer assessmentPeer evaluationPsychologyMathematics educationHigher educationLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer feedback in writing is considered an important stage of pedagogy. Peer feedback in L2 writing has been investigated through different lenses. Although a genre-based rubric for writing assessment is offered in the literature of feedback, a well-defined, principled and expert-like rubric with genre specifications is missing from peer feedback literature. This study offers a literature review of peer feedback literature, pinpoints the gaps, and provides a new, student-friendly 3x3 rubric for argumentative genre in writing through the amalgamation of frameworks in the literature. The pedagogical implication and application stages of the new genre-based rubric are discussed at the end.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and LiteratureSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207