CURRICULUM ENHANCEMENT AND EVALUATION OF GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES AND OUTCOMES THROUGH STUDENT-RUN FORUMS
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 evolution of a curriculum involves changes at many different levels such as daily changes to reflect questions or areas of interest of a particular class, improvements to an established course based on observations from the professor, or more significant changes to streams of courses at a departmental level, or adaptation to suggested accreditation guidelines such the recent new Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) graduate attributes and outcomes. Most educational institutions have means of collecting data and assessing individual courses or streams of courses based on student performance, course evaluations, and professor assessments. However, since more can be done to gauge the collective effect of changes before students get to their final year capstone project or go into industry, a student-run curriculum forum has been established.This paper presents some of the lessons learned from the bi-annual student-run curriculum forums in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Manitoba. Based on the experience acquired so far, this paper outlines the organization of the curriculum forums, suggestions on guided discussions, ways to present feedback, and means of communicating to students how their feedback is being used to improve the curriculum.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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