MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503949343 · doi:10.22329/celt.v1i0.3171

2. The Map to Curriculum Alignment and Improvement

2008· article· en· W1503949343 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Kopera-Frye, J Mahaffy, Gloria Messick Svare

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumProcess (computing)Mathematics educationComputer scienceCurriculum mappingCurriculum developmentConcept mapPedagogySociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curriculum mapping is a versatile process tool that can help faculty discern whether different curriculum components align; and if not, what adjustments can be made. Through this process faculty create a graphic portrayal of the program outcomes, the courses that comprise the program, and their relationship to the program’s purpose. This article describes both the curriculum mapping process and resulting map, highlighting the versatility of this approach by sharing examples of how it has been used by several academic units.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207