Bibliographic record
Abstract
The PIRLS 2001 data collection was a very complex undertaking in each country, requiring close cooperation between the National Research Coordinator (NRC) and school personnel – including stu-dents and their parents, school principals, and teachers. Survey operations and procedures for administering the PIRLS 2001 assessment were developed by the international project team, and documented in a series of manuals provided to the national cen-ters. Each country was responsible for implementing the proce-dures according to the international standards. The PIRLS 2001 survey operations were designed collaboratively by the International Study Center (ISC) at Boston College, the IEA Data Processing Center, and Statistics Canada. They were based on proce-dures used successfully in TIMSS and other IEA studies, and refined on the basis of the PIRLS 2001 field-test experience. As well as providing data to inform the instrument development process, the field test, which was conducted in 30 countries in September 2000, allowed participating countries to gain practical experience with the procedures described in the manuals, and provided an opportunity to identify areas in need of improvement. This chapter describes the survey operations used to collect the PIRLS data, including: the procedure for sampling classrooms within schools and tracking students and teachers, the steps involved in administering the achievement tests and background questionnaires, and the requirements for monitoring the quality of the data collection. It also describes the activities involved in preparing the data files at the national center, particularly those
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".