MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320302550 · doi:10.53841/bpsadm.2018.10.2.22

Assessment in the digital age: Some challenges for Test Developers and Users

2018· article· en· W4320302550 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment and Development Matters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Test (biology)PsychometricsComputer scienceData sciencePsychometric testingEngineering ethicsPsychologyApplied psychologyEngineeringClinical psychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key digested message How should psychometrics specialists (test developers and users) respond to the challenges of the digital age? A broad challenge that faces the discipline of psychometrics is to avoid being rooted in old ways of thinking about testing, whilst simultaneously ensuring that key principles of best practice in the science of assessment are maintained and applied to the new methodologies of testing. This article explores key issues in this focal challenge.

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)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0150.024
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessment and Development MattersSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207