MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412184891 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n1p32

Testing by Examples: Framing Example-Based Questions Either Inductively or Deductively

2025· article· en· W4412184891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey S. Nevid, Casey E. Armata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSt. John's University
KeywordsFraming (construction)PsychologyMathematics educationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the relative difficulty of example-based test questions framed inductively and deductively in relation to each other and to basic knowledge questions in two introductory psychology courses across two semesters. Results showed that students had more difficulty with deductively-framed questions on exams than basic knowledge questions and inductively-framed questions, with inductive and basic knowledge questions not differing significantly in difficulty. Test items tapping deductive reasoning skills may pose a greater challenge to students than other types of exam content. Instructional techniques designed to strengthen deductive reasoning skills may facilitate student ability to think deductively in generating examples of psychological concepts in daily life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207