MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400449407 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v52i1.55108

Establishing Performance Standards and Setting Cut-Scores

2006· article· en· W4400449407 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
W. Todd Rogers, Kathryn L. Ricker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAmerican Educational Research Association
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article serves as an introduction to the following four articles in which four methods for establishing standards and setting cut-scores are presented and evaluated. The purposes, nature, and characteristics of performance standards are first reviewed. This is followed by a brief discussion of the methods for setting cut-scores. Berk’s (1986) criteria for evaluating four of these procedures are then presented and described.

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)0.160
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.310
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1600.310
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0200.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207