Approaching the Loop: A Brief Review of Effective Practises in Continuous Program Improvement
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the results of outcomes basedassessment for the purposes of continuous improvement,or closing the loop, is a frequent topic of discussion inhigher education, and is becoming more commonplaceamongst Canadian engineering programs. There havebeen several organizations and institutions in the UnitedStates that have been investigating outcomes assessmentand how institutions use the data for improvementpurposes. Most notable of these are the National Institutefor Learning Outcomes Assessment and the schoolsparticipating the in the Wabash Study. Despite theseinvestigations and discussions, there is no clearconsensus of what a functioning closed loop resembles,due to the diversity that exists between one institution andthe next. Ultimately it will be the decision of an individualinstitution as to what the final process will resemble, butthere are some key or effective practises for continuousimprovement that can help institutions guide and shapetheir approach to closing the loop.This paper will briefly review the current landscape incontinuous improvement in higher education, and presenteffective practises, common themes and techniques forclosing the loop. The intent of this paper is to provide aresource collection of effective practises to help develop ameaningful, sustainable and practical data-informedcontinuous improvement process with a focus onengineering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it