MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312319894 · doi:10.7202/1091167ar

Détection des biais d’items et de personnes en testing adaptatif

2022· article· fr· W4312319894 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Raphael Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueMesure et évaluation en éducation · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si le testing adaptatif par ordinateur (TAO) possède des avantages reconnus depuis plusieurs décennies, il recèle également quelques inconvénients. Par exemple, tel que l’a déjà souligné Wainer (2000, p. xxiii), il ne serait pas très approprié d’utiliser la stratégie du TAO pour les tests à enjeux critiques (high stake tests) comme les examens. De même, puisque le nombre d’items des tests administrés selon la stratégie du TAO est limité, il est impératif de relever et, au besoin, d’éliminer les items comportant un fonctionnement différentiel (FDI). Cet article propose une procédure pour découvrir les items comportant un FDI dans le contexte spécifique du TAO. Une méthode pour distinguer les patrons de réponses atypiques dans le contexte du TAO est aussi suggérée.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMesure et évaluation en éducationSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207