MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411245502 · doi:10.1111/test.12410

Uncovering key statistical concepts from an investigation of four standardized tests

2025· article· en· W4411245502 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Statistics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsKey (lock)Statistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceStandardized testStatistical analysisStatisticsEconometricsMathematics educationPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To this date, few standardized tests measuring students' performance with regards to statistics exist. Only four tests have been proposed for college or university students. The goal of the present study is to investigate these tests. University professors or instructors experienced in teaching statistics were asked to list the concepts they think are being assessed by each item of the tests. A total of 708 responses were obtained from 42 participants. Using thematic analysis, 18 fundamental statistical concepts were identified. Unplanned analyses on participants' scores were also computed. The results suggest that there is no consensus on some of the items' correct answers. The study has practical implications for teaching statistics, from learning goals to assessment methods.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.339 · 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