COGAF: A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES ASSESSMENT
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
The objective of this paper is to introduce COGAF (a Common Graduate Attributes management Framework), an end-to-end framework that can be used by Canadian higher-level education institutions for integrating and managing the assessment of CEAB (Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board) graduate attributes in a systematic manner. COGAF is designed around four components: Governance, People, Process, and Technology (GPPT). The governance component consists of a set of artifacts to guide the execution of a graduate attributes assessment project. It addresses the ‘what should be done and why’ questions. The PPT components address the ‘how’ and ‘when’. The people component focuses on setting the right conditions to select, train, motivate, and retain the people who will operate COGAF. The process component focuses on the activities that need be carried out during the assessment project, whereas the technology component looks at tools (e.g., software applications) and technological platforms to support smooth execution of the assessment project.COGAF relies on strong management practices. It is meant to be a turn-key solution to be used by any institution that wishes to engage in integrating graduate attributes in their programs. COGAF is easily customizable to fit the needs of small and large institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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