Using Multilabel Neural Network to Score High‐Dimensional Assessments for Different Use Foci: An Example with College Major Preference Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scoring high‐dimensional assessments (e.g., > 15 traits) can be a challenging task. This paper introduces the multilabel neural network (MNN) as a scoring method for high‐dimensional assessments. Additionally, it demonstrates how MNN can score the same test responses to maximize different performance metrics, such as accuracy, recall, or precision, to suit users' varying needs. These two objectives are illustrated with an example of scoring the short version of the College Majors Preference assessment (Short CMPA) to match the results of whether the 50 college majors would be in one's top three, as determined by the Long CMPA. The results reveal that MNN significantly outperforms the simple‐sum ranking method (i.e., ranking the 50 majors' subscale scores) in targeting recall (.95 vs. .68) and precision (.53 vs. .38), while gaining an additional 3% in accuracy (.94 vs. .91). These findings suggest that, when executed properly, MNN can be a flexible and practical tool for scoring numerous traits and addressing various use foci.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it