MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366383700 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0022.007

Évaluations à grande échelle de l’écriture: lien entre le score holistique et les composantes de l’écriture

2008· article· en· W4366383700 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Denis Savard, Serge Sévigny, Isabelle Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)HumanitiesSocial psychologyArtHistoryCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Information generated by large-scale writing assessment holistic scores should serve as indicators for decision makers. But to what extent do holistic scores represent the different writing components? Based on a sample of written essays by 3,107 13- and 16-year-old Canadian students, analyses show that six writing components are related to the holistic score and the relationships do not vary based on language (essays written in English versus essays written in French). Results allow for a discussion of the interpretations of holistic scores in the context of writing assessments.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.399
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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207