The multiplicity of authenticity in higher education 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
This special issue tackles the challenge of whether authentic assessment remains educationally valuable given its multiplicity, subjectivity and inherent contradictions. We sought to trouble the notion that authentic assessment is only a goal, a final product, or an adjective to describe an assessment task; rather, that it could also be framed as an emergent process, and a way in which learners engage with assessment and how it shapes their futures. In this editorial, we draw on the concept of heterotopia to highlight the ways in which authenticity can challenge assessment norms and traditions, connect multiple sites, and create alternate ways of knowing and relating. By highlighting difference, we can reflect on hegemonic assessment practices moving beyond the common focus of replication of tasks undertaken in work to consider multiple purposes, which focus on the identity formation of students, the needs of the practice to which students aspire and the nature of the discipline in which the student is operating.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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