MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1889588694 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4785

EVALUATING THE USABILITY OF AN AUTOMATED COURSE-SPECIFIC VOCABULARY TO MEASURE LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IN ORAL PRESENTATIONS

2013· article· en· W1889588694 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chirag Variawa, Lydia Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilityVocabularyNatural language processingField (mathematics)Measure (data warehouse)Artificial intelligenceCourse (navigation)Term (time)Word (group theory)LinguisticsHuman–computer interactionEngineeringData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study is being conducted to automatically identify and highlight course-specific language used in engineering courses. Specifically, the Term-Frequency Inverse-Document Frequency (TF-IDF) algorithm, from the field of computational linguistics, is used to identify words that are characteristic to exams. This paper analyzes the success of a TF-IDF generated word list to capture discipline-specific language in oral design presentations in a second year Environmental Chemistry course.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207