MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849446816 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4841

How Student Reflections Have Guided the Evolution of a Mechanical Engineering Capstone Design Course

2013· article· en· W1849446816 on OpenAlexaffvenue
H. F. Machiel Van der Loos, Antony J. Hodgson, Jon Mikkelsen, Markus Fengler

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapstoneCapstone courseConversationReflection (computer programming)PsychologyMedical educationQuality (philosophy)PedagogyMathematics educationStudent engagementProcess (computing)EngineeringEngineering ethicsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To provide for professional growth of students and to gain deeper insight into student engagement in the University of British Columbia MECH Capstone Design Project Course, the teaching team has deployed an open-ended reflection opportunity over the past 6 years as an adjunct to the required teaching evaluations. Three years of year-end questionnaires and three years of bi-monthly instructor-led reflection sessions form the datasets. Although the two formats are fundamentally different, the quality of the responses provides evidence of high student awareness of their own learning process and a desire to be a meaningful contributor in the conversation on course improvement.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesFrench-language works237,207