A Study of Writing Assignments in Selected Candadian Undergraduate Economics Programs
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
The literature on university economics education suggests that written assignments are a highly valuable assessment vehicle that can help students to develop economic knowledge as well as skills relevant to the workplace. That literature also suggests that written assignments are under-used by economics instructors. Few studies have, however, attempted to quantify the degree of under-utilisation. This paper uses enrolment data and data extracted from the content of course outlines and syllabi to assess the degree to which writing is used as an assessment strategy in economics courses at a sample of research-intensive Canadian economics departments. The analysis shows that economics writing is indeed under-represented within the range of assessed activities at these institutions. Some observations are also provided about the context and type of writing assignments offered. The conclusion reached is that there is considerable pedagogical room within these institutions to make greater use of economics writing as an assessment tool. Keywords : assessment, economics education, writing. JEL classification : A22
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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