MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035894125 · doi:10.1021/ed200782c

Undergraduate Oral Examinations in a University Organic Chemistry Curriculum

2012· article· en· W2035894125 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFaculty of Arts and Sciences
KeywordsCurriculumComprehensionClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationOral examinationProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceMedical educationChemistryPsychologyMedicinePedagogyDentistryArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the successful implementation of an oral examination format in the organic chemistry curriculum at the University of Toronto. Oral examinations are used to replace traditional written midterm examinations in several courses. In an introductory organic class, each student is allotted 15 min to individually discuss one pre-selected “named” reaction with the course instructors. To stimulate further learning, students must choose a particular reaction that has not been presented during lecture or performed in the laboratory. In upper-level courses, students review selected literature syntheses of either a drug molecule or natural product. The oral examination format provides a dynamic assessment approach that can be individualized to facilitate an in-depth analysis of student comprehension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it