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 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.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
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