Innovación en la evaluación de las disciplinas jurídicas: nuestra experiencia en la asignatura Derecho Fiscal Comunitario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En esta Comunicacion presentaremos una experiencia concreta de innovacion docente que en el marco del Proceso de Bolonia se ha desarrollado en la Universidad de Granada en relacion a la asignatura �Derecho Fiscal Comunitario� que, junto a otras del area de Derecho Financiero y Tributario de esta Universidad, ha participado en el Proyecto de Innovacion Docente �Una propuesta innovadora de coordinacion entre docencia y evaluacion en el ambito juridico� financiado por la misma. La finalidad esencial de la experiencia, de acuerdo con las directrices del EEES, era implementar un nuevo modelo de ensenanza en el que cobrase un mayor protagonismo el alumno, abandonando su tradicional posicion pasiva y meramente receptora e implicandolo en su propio proceso de aprendizaje; �colaborando� con el profesor en tareas en un principio reservadas a su exclusiva competencia. Esta mayor implicacion se ha visto acompanada de un sistema de evaluacion continua, con el que se ha pretendido valorar diariamente el esfuerzo del alumno, en base a la consecucion de objetivos actitudinales y procedimentales, junto a los tradicionales cognitivos.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".