MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047008782 · doi:10.1108/09684880010356057

The concept of programme specification and its application in the new quality assurance framework

2000· article· en· W2047008782 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Assurance in Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Change and Leadership
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceQuality (philosophy)Agency (philosophy)Process (computing)Higher educationProduct (mathematics)Process managementEngineering managementProgram assuranceAccountingComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringOperations managementPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article introduces the idea of programme specification and background to the development of policy by the Quality Assurance Agency. Programme specification will promote an outcomes approach to learning and the specification of standards across UK higher education and provide the basis for a new national quality assurance framework that focuses primarily on academic standards. It argues that the process of producing and justifying programme specifications will have an important influence on academic and quality assurance practices and the product (the programme specification) will result in new types of information about higher education learning.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · 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