MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551842617 · doi:10.22329/celt.v2i0.3223

29. Using Skills Portfolios in Fourth-Year University Transition to Work Courses

2009· article· en· W1551842617 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Janet Wolstenholme, F. T. Evers

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PortfolioPsychologyCreativityCore competencyPresentation (obstetrics)Study skillsCommunication skillsPedagogyCareer portfolioWork (physics)Mathematics educationMedical educationCareer developmentManagementEngineeringSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Transition from school to work’ courses are an excellent way to help fourth-year university students as they complete their studies and prepare for the world of work. In this paper we present The Bases of Competence (Evers, Rush, & Berdrow, 1998), a model of the advanced skills used by university graduates in the workplace. The model consists of four groupings of skills (base competencies): Managing Self, Communicating, Managing People and Tasks, and Mobilizing Innovation and Change. Each base competency consists of four or five more specific advanced skills (e.g., Mobilizing Innovation and Change consists of ability to conceptualize, creativity, risk-taking, and visioning). The base competencies and the skills within each base serve as the core of the skills that make up the skills portfolios students complete in the transition courses conducted at the University of Guelph and the University of Guelph-Humber. Students reflect on and report behaviours related to each skill based on their education, life, and work experiences. The portfolio also includes a résumé, cover letter, and other elements related to career development and work search. The portfolio comprises fifty percent of the course; the remainder is taken up with a project and presentation aimed at capping the student’s undergraduate experience with eyes to the future and enhancing under-utilized oral communication skills.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207