MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389312553 · doi:10.5070/w4jwa.6559

Editor’s Introduction: Contract Grading, Portfolios, and Reflection

2023· article· en· W4389312553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carl Whithaus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of writing assessment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Colorado Colorado SpringsCalifornia State University, FresnoSan Francisco State UniversityUniversity of Toronto MississaugaFairleigh Dickinson UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of DenverAppalachian State UniversityUniversity of South FloridaUniversity of Nevada, RenoUniversity of LethbridgeGrand Valley State UniversityBoise State UniversityElon UniversityUniversity of Central FloridaWayne State UniversityUniversity of MiamiYork UniversityIdaho State Board of EducationMontclair State UniversityMiddle Tennessee State UniversityUniversity of California, DavisArizona State UniversityFlorida State UniversitySanta Clara University
KeywordsGrading (engineering)WatsonReflection (computer programming)Construct (python library)Mathematics educationEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringProgramming languageNatural language processingCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The articles in this issue examine the continuing use and development of contract grading in college and high school writing courses (DasBender et al. and Watson); time and labor as important influences despite most often being seen as outside of the construct of writing (Del Principe); and the treatment of reflection within writing assessment theory and practice (Ratto Parks).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0140.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of writing assessmentSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207