MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389925007 · doi:10.21449/ijate.1359348

Automatic item generation for non-verbal reasoning items

2023· article· en· W4389925007 on OpenAlexaff
Ayfer SAYIN, Sabiha BOZDAĞ, Mark J. Gierl

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Assessment Tools in Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbal reasoningComputer scienceTest (biology)Item analysisCognitionItem response theoryHomogeneousSubject-matter expertNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSubject matterPsychologyCognitive psychologyPsychometricsPedagogyExpert systemMathematicsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to generate non-verbal items for a visual reasoning test using templated-based automatic item generation (AIG). The fundamental research method involved following the three stages of template-based AIG. An item from the 2016 4th-grade entrance exam of the Science and Art Center (known as BİLSEM) was chosen as the parent item. A cognitive model and an item model were developed for non-verbal reasoning. Then, the items were generated using computer algorithms. For the first item model, 112 items were generated, and for the second item model, 1728 items were produced. The items were evaluated based on subject matter experts (SMEs). The SMEs indicated that the items met the criteria of one right answer, single content and behavior, not trivial content, and homogeneous choices. Additionally, SMEs' opinions determined that the items have varying item difficulty. The results obtained demonstrate the feasibility of AIG for creating an extensive item repository consisting of non-verbal visual reasoning items.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.409 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Assessment Tools in EducationSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207