RUBRICS AS A VEHICLE TO DEFINE THE TWELVE CEAB GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES, DETERMINE GRADUATE COMPETENCIES, AND DEVELOP A COMMON LANGUAGE FOR ENGINEERING STAKEHOLDERS
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
This paper discusses the evolution of a set ofrubrics for the 12 CEAB graduate attributes in theFaculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba. Therubrics are intended as a pedagogical assessment tool forinstructors of individual courses as applicable, and forassessment at the program level. Individuals from faculty,industry and the University of Manitoba Centre for theAdvancement of Teaching and Learning have beeninvolved in the process of evaluating and revising boththe content and wording of the rubrics in order that theymeet the following criteria: (i) the foci and indicatorsadequately communicate the knowledge, skills, attitudes,values and behaviours that our engineering stakeholdersagree do define each attribute; (ii) the competency levelfor each indicator is representative of what engineeringeducators and stakeholders agree defines proficiency;and (iii) the language in the rubrics is consistent andagreeable to all engineering stakeholders. These rubricsare expected to accomplish a number of outcomes-basedpedagogical and accreditation goals, including: dividingthe attributes into teachable and measurable foci andindicators; defining competency levels; and becoming avehicle for the development of a common language forfaculty, students and industry when they discuss, teach,assess and acquire the knowledge, skills and behavioursof the CEAB graduate attributes. This paper reports onthe evolution of these rubrics, and outlines plans for theircontinued development and use within the faculty.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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