MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are We Doing Any Good? A Value-Added Analysis of UBC’s Science One Program

2012· article· en· W2064214071 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Neil H. Dryden, Celeste A. Leander, Domingo J. Louis-Martinez, Hiroko Nakahara, Mark MacLean, Chris Waltham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGraduate studentsSociologyLibrary sciencePedagogyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Science One is a full academic year interdisciplinary alternative to the traditional first-year experience in the Faculty of Science at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Anecdotal reports suggest that alumni/ae of the program do very well in upper-level classes and many become successful graduate and medical students. The high faculty/student ratio makes the program an expensive one, however, and thus we have sought rigorous evidence of the benefits to our students. Our approach has been a value-added one; we have compared high-school and upper-level undergraduate grades for students in all UBC's first-year science programs. We have found a clear signal that there is a large benefit to participating in Science One, and conclude that this arises from a combination of the recruitment of enthusiastic students who are up for a challenge, the Science One admissions process, and taking the program itself. Science One consiste en une année scolaire interdisciplinaire complète qui représente une variante de l’expérience traditionnelle vécue en première année à la Faculté des sciences de l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique (UBC). Des rapports isolés suggèrent que les anciens étudiants du programme obtiennent de très bons résultats dans les cours de niveau supérieur et plusieurs obtiennent leur diplôme avec succès et étudient en médecine. Cependant, le ratio élevé enseignant/étudiant fait en sorte que le programme coûte cher, c’est pourquoi les auteurs ont cherché à obtenir des données probantes sur les avantages qu’il présente pour leurs étudiants. Ils ont employé la méthode de la valeur ajoutée; ont comparé les notes obtenues au secondaire et celles des étudiants de premier cycle inscrits à des cours de niveau supérieur dans tous les programmes scientifiques offerts à l’UBC. Ils ont découvert que la participation à Science One est très bénéfique et ont conclu que cela résulte d’une combinaison entre le recrutement d’étudiants enthousiastes qui souhaitent relever un défi, le processus d’admission à Science One et le fait de suivre le programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207