MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W599295575 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511611186

Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education

2007· book· en· W599295575 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2007
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionStrengths and weaknessesConstruct (python library)Test (biology)PsychologyEducational assessmentDiagnostic testComputer sciencePedagogyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the current push toward educational reform, there is great potential for innovation and change, particularly in large scale testing. One area where change is possible is in cognitive diagnostic assessment. Researchers in educational measurement and cognitive psychology are finally in a position to design tests targeted specifically for providing valuable information about students' cognitive strengths and weaknesses. This self-contained volume organizes what is known about cognitive diagnostic assessment in education, including its conceptual and philosophical basis, methods, and applications. The complete list of topics includes educational demand, philosophical rationale, construct validity, cognitive methods, test construction, statistical models, and unresolved issues (e.g., how to best translate diagnostic information into teaching practices). Leighton and Gierl present a comprehensive and up-to-date examination of cognitive diagnostic assessment in education.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.308 · 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