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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.721
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