MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539558668 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3605

CEAB’s Graduate Attributes and Ontario’s UUDLEs

2011· article· en· W1539558668 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationPresentation (obstetrics)Perspective (graphical)Graduate educationIntersection (aeronautics)VocabularyEngineering educationMedical educationPsychologyEngineeringPedagogyComputer scienceEngineering managementArtificial intelligenceTransport engineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, the Province of Ontario mandated UniversityUndergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UUDLEs). The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) began reviewing and assessing progress towards twelve graduate attributes in 2010. UUDLEs and Graduate Attributes are both a learning outcomes perspective on education. Unfortunately, the vocabulary of these two learning outcome requirements is not identical. This presentation will take a look at the intersection and the differences between the two requirements. Recognizing and understanding the differences is essential for Ontario engineering schools to maximize the educational benefits associated with these two new requirements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.218 · 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