On being examined: Do students and faculty agree? (531.18)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examinations are the bane of student life. However, what they mean and whether they serve any useful purpose is debatable. Undergraduate students in a 4‐year honours program, independently surveyed their peers (n=526) and teachers (n=33) using a 15‐item questionnaire that sought to explore differing perceptions of diverse aspects of examinations. Participants indicated their level of agreement on a 10‐point scale to a series of statements that gauged: personal value, format, level of creativity permitted, and the grading of exams, as well as their long‐term utility. On most items, there was a general agreement between the entire student body and the faculty. However, on specific issues, (i.e. exams written as groups vs. as individuals) students at different levels had varying opinions. Whereas the student body as a whole would prefer having a choice in the exam format (mode=10), the faculty were less enthusiastic (mode=5). Focus groups and follow‐up questionnaires will probe these differences further. This program sets a high premium on the importance of a student‐centred, inquiry‐based learning. Clearly, the students accept this ethos, though the faculty appear to have some reservations on specific issues.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.009 |
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".