MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100710741

Applied Measurement and Evaluation

2013· article· en· W7100710741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateContext (archaeology)DisseminationVisitor patternFeature (linguistics)Quality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta. Since its inception 10 years ago, the mandate for CRAME has been clear: To enhance the quality of educational measurement, educational research, and program evaluation and to promote educational measurement and evaluation as an integral part of instruction. These outcomes are pursued within the context of the research conducted and courses taught by the faculty in CRAME. With ‘The Bulletin ’ we hope to promote the ideas in the Centre and to disseminate information about research activities and findings. ‘The Bulletin ’ will provide a way for CRAME’rs to interact with other professionals in Canada and abroad who have interests in educational measurement and evaluation. ‘The Bulletin ’ will be published on-line and distributed from the CRAME web site twice a year—in the Fall (September) and Winter (January) terms. Each issue will contain an up-date of the research conducted in CRAME, an overview of the activities in the Centre, and a feature article. In this issue our feature article is by Dr. Robert E. Stake, Professor of Education, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Stake was a visitor in CRAME and an EFF Distinguished Scholar at the University of Alberta in the Fall 1998 term. He spent a week at the University

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.017

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 head0.503
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.017 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation and Performance Assessment→French-language works237,207→