INNOVATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CEAB GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES IN LARGE CLASS: LAW AND ETHICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE
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
Four CEAB graduate attributes were assessed in a fourth-year common engineering course. The graduate attributes assessed were: professionalism, impact of engineering on society and environment, ethics and equity, and lifelong learning. The course addressed the legal and ethical aspects of engineering practice. The learning objectives were assessed in the midterm and final exams for the entire class (446 students) using multiple choice questions. An innovative method to assess the learning objectives was developed. Each learning objective was divided into a number of knowledge elements or case-study behavioural elements. A question was then developed for each element. The group of questions was used as the basis for establishing scales to measure student performance. Three scales were defined: poor, average, and excellent based on the number of questions the students answered correctly. Based on the assessment results, program improvements related to the learning objectives were identified.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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