Collaborative information behaviour in undergraduate group projects: A study of engineering students
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
Abstract This paper reports on ongoing research investigating the collaborative information behaviour of undergraduate engineering students who are working on a course‐based engineering project. It presents data collected through a web‐based survey undertaken at the end of a senior multidisciplinary design engineering course in a Canadian University. The survey was completed in March 2010 by 42 individual students and included 33 questions relating to both individual and group activities during the project. The findings show that students engaged in more collaborative activities during the information need identification stage and the final stage in which information was employed to write the final report. The open‐ended questions showed students' preferences to approach other people as information channels to guide them to relevant information that are appropriate to the project task. Different strategies towards collaborative activities were also identified among student groups. Collaborative activities were found to be at their highest during the task formulation stage at the early stage of the project and at a lesser level during the selection of the design solution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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