MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399879453 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v49i4.55029

What Do Teacher Candidates Know About Large-Scale Assessments? What Should They Know?

2003· article· en· W4399879453 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ruth A. Childs, Alexandra Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeed to knowPsychologyScale (ratio)Educational researchMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As states and provinces develop large-scale assessment programs linked to their curricula, teachers are increasingly expected to interpret the assessment results and to explain them to parents. The challenge for teachers is especially great in Ontario, which began developing an assessment program in 1996 after almost three decades without provincially mandated testing. Three hundred and sixty teacher candidates completed a questionnaire on their knowledge about, exposure to, and opinions of the assessments. Many teacher candidates held strong views, often negative, about the assessments. Even those who had little exposure to or knowledge of the assessments held predominantly negative opinions.

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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207