Understanding the log file data from educational and psychological computer-based testing: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancement of computer-based testing, log file data has drawn considerable attention from researchers. Although emerging studies have begun to explore log file data, there is a gap in the exploitation of log file data for capturing and understanding participants' cognitive processes. The debate on how to maximize insights from log file data has not yet reached a consensus. Therefore, we present this protocol for a scoping review that aims to characterize the application of log file data in current publications, including the data pre-processing techniques, analytical methodologies, and theoretical frameworks used by researchers. This review will also aim to illuminate how log file data can enhance psychological and educational assessments. Our findings will highlight the opportunities and challenges presented by log file data as an emerging and essential source of evidence for future advancements in psychological and educational assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.170 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".