MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327910164 · doi:10.1177/01466216231165299

Confidence Screening Detector: A New Method for Detecting Test Collusion

2023· article· en· W4327910164 on OpenAlexaff
Yongze Xu, Ying Cui, Xinyi Wang, Meiwei Huang, Fang Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychological Measurement · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCollusionCheatingCliqueComputer scienceTest (biology)DetectorItem response theoryScale (ratio)Statistical hypothesis testingVariable (mathematics)Similarity (geometry)Selection (genetic algorithm)StatisticsData miningAlgorithmMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPsychologyPsychometricsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Test collusion (TC) is a form of cheating in which, examinees operate in groups to alter normal item responses. TC is becoming increasingly common, especially within high-stakes, large-scale examinations. However, research on TC detection methods remains scarce. The present article proposes a new algorithm for TC detection, inspired by variable selection within high-dimensional statistical analysis. The algorithm relies only on item responses and supports different response similarity indices. Simulation and practical studies were conducted to (1) compare the performance of the new algorithm against the recently developed clique detector approach, and (2) verify the performance of the new algorithm in a large-scale test setting.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.721
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Psychological MeasurementSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207