MyCI: Crossing the Border of student and communication instructor relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, the Engineering Communication Program (ECP) teamed up with Engineering Strategic Communication to find a visual way to resolve ECP's identity issues. We wanted to integrate the university and our Faculty's recently developed “brand” in order to represent ourselves visibly as part of the engineering world, and so developed a type treatment of our name, and an insignia that introduced an acronym for communication instructors - MyCI. It was intended to resolve the confusion between TAs and Communication Instructors by introducing a mnemonic, an easy to say, easy to remember counterpart to the acronym for Teaching Assistant, while reinforcing the idea that developing a relationship with a Communication Instructor helps the learning process. We are investigating student response to the insignia before beginning work with their CIs, and as they become more familiar with the program. Our study consists of a survey administered at three points in first year, as well as focused interviews. Results will provide information about the degree to which students can identify and differentiate Communication Instructors and instruction from other parts of their academic experience, and the effectiveness of the MyCI insignia in transmitting accurate information about ECP and its instructors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".